On 31/05/08 at 23:43 +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of > > the intro, which didn't really add any value. > > Agreed. > > > + * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you > > + tried to contact him? In general it should be considered > > preferable + that a maintainer takes care of an issue himself and > > that he is + given the chance to review and correct your patch, > > because he can + be expected to be more aware of things that an > > NMUer might miss. > > "things" is a bit vague: s/things that an NMUer might miss/potential > issues which an NMUer might miss/
ACK > > +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 document, 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. > > s/more timely/timely/ > > The "more" does not really refer back to anything. ACK -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
