Le mercredi, 4 mai 2011 11.40:18, Neil McGovern a écrit : > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 06:57:13AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Le Tue, May 03, 2011 at 09:22:46PM +0100, Neil McGovern a écrit : > > > Yes. If a maintainer is taking more that for a *RC* bug fix, then they > > > *should* keep the buglog updated with status. > > > > Talking about the GCC 4.6 “*RC bugs*”, I got one other report telling > > that Debian's GCC 4.6.1 will introduce more failures. Then why do we > > need to act in emergency and fix all the 4.6.0 bugs within 7 days ? > > Can't you tolerate us to collate both transitions, without having to put > > placeholders bugs in the BTS ? > > No. You don't need to fix all the bugs in 7 days, you need to at least > respond to it though.
The proposed wording doesn't imply this IMHO; I read it as "if you can't find an action from the maintainer on the buglog in the last 7 days, you can 0-day NMU". What we want is more something along the lines of "If the bug is older than 7 days without any maintainer activity /at all/, you can 0-day NMU". I don't think we can expect maintainers to ping their RC bugs on a weekly basis, just to repeat "I'm working on a proper fix, it takes time, don't NMU please". Perhaps we need a "willfix" or "dont-nmu-please" tag… -- OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
