Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The DEP currently addresses communication like that: > > When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences > between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you > are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well. > > I have several questions about the requirement for communication that > you want to add: > - Do you want to require two-way communication? > - If the maintainer doesn't answer, how much time should the NMUer wait > for the maintainer, in your opinion?
That has to be decided by common sense, on a case-by-case basis. I remember when once I screwed up the postrm script of tetex-base or -bin, and it meant that every attempt of a buildd to build a package which build-depended on teTeX would lead to a screwed buildd which needed manual intervention. The package was NMUed without asking, and I think that was correct. I was upset at the time, partly because I sort the ACCEPTED messages differently than BTS e-mail, and read the upload notification before I even knew about the bug, and partly because there was no patch or NMU announcement in the BTS. But except for the missing patch: Doing the upload ASAP was the right thing to do, given the simpleness of the fix (a trivial bash syntax error). But the DEP *should* definitely require an explicit "I want to NMU" or, in the teTeX case, "I have done the NMU". > The current wording requires a notification (by sending a mail to the > BTS). I don't think that it's a good idea to additionally require that > this mail should be sent to the maintainer's private email address, > because that doesn't work well with co-maintainance. Agreed. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
