On 05/04/2011 11:43 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >> On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that >>> recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for >>> action in less than a couple of days in Debian, so the current policy >>> seems fine to me. >> The Developers' reference gives recommendations to developers, it is not >> binding. If you think that a RC bug needs to be fixed with a 0-day NMU, >> you are still free to ignore the recommendation and proceed with your >> 0-day NMU. However, in the general case, I don't think that we should >> *recommend* 0-day NMUs. >> > > I'll repeat again, that this has been the policy for the last 5 years. > This bug is an attemt to document what is actually happening.
The current policy is indeed 0-day NMUs for RC bug fixes without any maintainer activity where the bug is at least 7 days old AFAICT. Though the focus should always be to do no harm as NMUer and to not feel offended by NMUs as maintainer IMHO. In practice I usually do 2-day NMUs myself unless I already got maintainer approval. Maybe it's better to get a zeroNMU list per package like lowNMU (per maintainer) where maintainers approve 0-day RC bug NMUs for the packages that are listed on the zeroNMU list? This would have the benefit that maintainers who agree with 0-day NMUs for RC bugs can do so explicitly. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4dc18695.5080...@debian.org
