On Wed, 6 May 2015 12:49:44 +0200 Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@debian.org> wrote:
> Neil Williams, le Wed 06 May 2015 11:39:29 +0100, a écrit : > > It's not at all that the maintainers are "lazy" or that those > > maintainers could have done anything differently. Those maintainers > > have their workloads and have made an assessment of their > > priorities. > > I'm sorry I have to disagree here. When trivial patches get submitted, > the extra load is negligible compared to general management of the > package. You may consider a patch trivial, does not mean that the testing of that patch is trivial. If the maintainer does not consider such a change to be of a high enough priority, there is no reason to carry even a "trivial" patch amongst the many other patches and issues being handled by that maintainer. If the patch *is* trivial and testable then it is up to the porters to arrange a fully tested NMU. Maintainers should help porters for release architectures wherever possible - for non-release architectures, that really isn't something you can do anything about except do the work yourselves. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpbOx9grmRkn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
