On 01/06/08 at 15:29 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 00:42:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > >> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > >>> Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The > >>> risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks "oh, that's an old > >>> issue and the fix seems so simple" and goes ahead and NMUs it, while > >>> there may be very valid reasons for not fixing it (or at least not with > >>> _that_ fix). > >> Then they should have been mentioned in the bug log, shouldn't they? > >> > >> ... and IME they usually *are* for active teams, so I'm not sure I can > >> buy your argument. I rather conclude that active teams won't risk > >> anything with the procedure which is being proposed, while not active > >> teams will see NMUs, as they should. > >> > > That's probably true for RC bugs, but I can't swear all bugs with a > > patch in my packages have a maintainer comment. This DEP wants to > > extend NMUs to all bug severities. > > NMUs are already possible for all bug severities. I don't know why some > people think they are not?
>From the current devref: NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and accepted. ... but it doesn't say anything for bgs with severity<important. -- | 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]
