Hi, On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 08:50:20AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > If I understand things correctly, we are discussing the NMU of grig by > Cyril (#444509).
No, not really. The post you replied to stated explicitly that it wasn't talking about any specific event, just about general procedure. > The maintainer was properly notified through the BTS: > - when the patch was provided > - when the package was uploaded to DELAYED/5. > This means several days before the upload reaches the archive. Had the > maintainer wanted to stop the process, he could have told Cyril (or his > sponsor), and the upload could have been removed from DELAYED/n. > > > 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. > > Which disrespect? The situation this is about is that there's a bug in the BTS, which is more than a week old. Then instead of sending a patch to the BTS, an NMU is sent to the DELAYED queue and this is the first notice that the maintainer gets that someone else is working on the problem. This is _not_ what happened in this case. As you say, Cyril has been doing things very well. The statement was just "let's make it clear that doing a DELAYED NMU is not a proper way of notifying the maintainer. The proper way is to send e-mail to him, for example through the BTS." This is exactly what Cyril did, so there's nothing wrong with that. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
