On Tue Mar 10 14:45, Clint Adams wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:22:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > This would definetly be useful, as it would help someone from wasting > > time preparing the NMU in the first place, but it certainly doesn't > > excuse making NMUs without notifying the maintainer beforehand. > > If the maintainer can't be bothered to respond to a bug report, the > maintainer doesn't deserve any kind of notification. Wrong, on so many levels. Ignoring the fact that two wrongs don't make a right...
We have individual maintainership and whether that is good or bad it means the maintainer can assume by default that he's the only person working on the package and making uploads. We have exceptions to this, which is good, but they are _exceptions_ and therefore need notification. Yes, the maintainer should respond to the bug report and yes he* should mark the bug as pending, but forgetting this step in no means justifies an NMUer doing the same. NMUs should _always_ be posted to the bug log _before_ upload and ideally before any work is done. That should be an absolute requirement and I will vote against any proposal which doesn't require this. If you want to be nice, you should give the maintainer time to respond before doing this and file patches etc (as suggested in the dev ref...), but for things which are 0day NMUable that's obviously not always practical. Matt * insert pronoun as required -- Matthew Johnson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
