On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:20:32PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 11:37:17AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=lmamane&comaint=yes says I've >> NMUed thinkpad, while what I've done is sponsor an NMU by >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [You] (among other things) should consider yourself responsible for > any bugs introduced in that upload. That is correct. But because I *sponsored* the upload doesn't mean the person that prepared is "off the hook". > I think it's perfectly appropriate for the qa.d.o web pages to > facilitate this. It would do so just as effectively by listing thinkpad in the "sponsored upload" category (or a new "sponsored NMUs" category) on my page. It would be _more_ efficient by making that NMU appear (as an NMU) on [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s page (additionally to my page). > No, in fact, an NMU is a "non-maintainer upload". You uploaded it, > so you performed an NMU, That's ridiculous. So if I merely signed it and I let [EMAIL PROTECTED] do the actual FTP upload of the material prepared by him and signed by me, it would change anything? Actually, the web page has no idea that this is not what happened. jtdhood prepared the new version, he did the work => credit is his. He's the NMUer. I implemented the "have a DD check this non-DD (and hence untrusted)" step. The sponsorship. To take it from the other side, do you think it is a bug that the PTS shows Thomas Hood's name, and not mine? I'm not discussing the _consequences_ of what I did, just how it is _called_. -- Lionel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
