On 31/05/08 at 18:44 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for > > > team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS > > > instead." to the bullet list. > > > > It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members > > might become unresponsive at the same time. I don't think that we > > should special-case this. > > Yes, it probably does depend on the team. But several people have raised > this point now, which probably means that it _is_ a real concern.
So far, you (in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) and Charles Plessy (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) raised that concern. On the other hand, Bas Wijnen (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) and I disagreed that a special consideration was needed. We can't just blindly add every suggestion that people propose, because that would make other people unhappy. I am opposed to forbidding NMUs, or requiring prior ack from the maintainer, for some categories of maintainers. If we start listing such categories, we will end up with something like: - teams with at least one very active/responsive member, or two active/resposnive members - very active/responsive DDs, unless they are in VAC for more than n days That will be totally a PITA to check, and very error-prone. (how do you measure activity and responsiveness?) Instead, I'm totally open to emphasizing the fact that if the package is maintained by a team or by a known-active DD, the NMUer should really try harder to contact the maintainers before proceeding with the NMU. Phil Hands proposed something in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Clearly there are cases where NMUs are inappropriate. The DEP is currently > missing language to make that point clear (at least in my reading of it) > perhaps it needs a final clause along the lines of: > > This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly. If you NMU when > it is clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged > a patch in a more timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations > of this DEP, or if you do something else that assumes that this is an > NMUers charter and that a lawyerly interpretation of some subclause > can be used to justify some abusive action, be warned, there is no > protection for you here. You should always be prepared to defend the > wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits. Frans, would adding that paragraph solve your concerns, or can you suggest a patch to this paragraph that would solve them? > are you (the proposers of this DEP) going to start listening to your > peers instead of dismissing their concerns? If you started to propose wordings that would suit you, instead of waiting for us to propose stuff by mind-reading, that would be a lot easier to listen to you. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
