On 24/05/10 at 11:14 +0200, Ricardo Mones wrote: > So we're back at what I said in the other mail: if those processes we > already have take too long let's shorten them and make those neglected > packages fall under QA umbrella faster, do not use NMU as a general > procedure because a NMU it's not the thing for that. > > And if you think it's adequate to NMU it should be clearly stated in the > relevant documents (notice I'm not against any of both options), otherwise > an immediate increase of some packages' quality could bring a decrease of > our inter-maintainer relationships quality on the long term for using NMUs > for workarounding such processes.
I drove the last DEP on the topic of NMUs, and am reasonably satisfied with the current wording. I haven't heard of any maintainer complaining about recent NMUs, so I think that we are still fine on the inter-maintainer relationship side. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100524100223.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info
