Cyril Brulebois wrote:
The rules defined in [1] applied. And instead of pinging the maintainer,
waiting, and then uploading (to DELAYED/0), it looked like (after
talking with DDs during the BSP I mentioned) that DELAYED/n was a good
means of notifying the maintainer, through the nmudiff sent to the bug,
making the patch publicly visible, as well as the status of the bug
(patch & pending tags), and letting the maintainer the time to react.
1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/09/msg00000.html
While that link describes a temporary necessity, the regular
NMU rules still apply. I do not know which DDs you talked with,
but submitting an NMU to a "DELAYED/n" queue IS NOT "a
good means of notifying the maintainer." You should always
try to contact the maintainer first!
I am not suggesting that a maintainer that refuses to respond
will hold up the NMU. I want to explicitly note the disrepect
that is shown when a maintainer first learns of the NMU from
a DELAYED queue without prior notice. If a person cannot
communicate with some email, being a 'lone wolf' submitting
NMUs will not benefit the project in the long term. The NMU
does not replace communication skills.
The link above deals with a special need. Lack of communication
will create other special problems. My response here is not
directed to a specific person or conversation. I just want to
prevent a flood of NMUs as "a good means of notifying the
maintainer."
Richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
