On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:03:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Bart Martens wrote: > > You sure do have a point here. But that seems to apply to both DD's and > > It would appply to those who can upload (i.e. DDs right now). > > > non-DD's. I still don't see why a sponsored NMU would be bad. > > It is not that sponsored NMUs are bad, it is that they are about the same as > a normal NMU (the difference being who proposed the fix...). Unless you are > talking about some DD which considers sponsoring to be "upload in blind > faith", in which case please tell us who is doing that so we can see to > getting his upload rights revoked.
Let's say that person A proposes a fix by uploading a patch to a bug report. Person B is the maintainer of the package but has temporarily no time to package the patch. Person C is a non-DD and packages an NMU-package using that patch, and follows the documented NMU procedure as if he/she were a DD except the upload. Person D sponsors the NMU-package of person C by thoroughly verifying C's work and uploads the package as-is, thus without repackaging it as if it's D's package. I personally see no problem with this. I would not forbid this. I'm aware that person C is mentioned in the changelog of the package, and not person D. I don't see a problem with that. Note that person B can be a non-DD too, so there we have non-DD's in changelogs too. I'm interested in some consensus about this, because I'm in the NM queue, and I sometimes do NMU's via my sponsor. I want to know wether continuing that is appropriate or not. Some parts of the documentation describe how to create an NMU package. Those parts apply to person C. The documentation how to do the upload itself obviously apply to person D. Obviously, if person D has blind faith in person C, and simply uploads the NMU package without verification, that would be bad sponsoring. But that would be a discussion about appropriate sponsoring, not about the appropriateness of sponsored NMU's. -- Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 31 May 2006 18:56:08 +0200 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
