On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:28:42AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > Yeah. I did several perl 5.8 NMUs this weekend (all to the delayed > queue), but all of them are filed in the BTS. I don't think aj intended > that routine procedure to be changed. > > > I'm concerned that a single person has the power to dictate such dramatic > > changes in our procedures. > > There was quite a bit of discussion about it, mostly centred around the > fact that there are a quite unreasonable number of bugs mired with > inactive maintainers. The DELAYED queue is a fantastic tool to encourage > people to fix bugs while still giving maintainers warning of the > proposed changes well before they're actually made.
In this case, no bug was ever submitted. I am also not an inactive maintainer; I deal with bugs in my packages in an expedient manner, when they are submitted properly. The NMU was made before I was in any way contacted. Had bugs been submitted, I would not have even uploaded the package that ended up being NMU'd; there's a new version of the library out as of a couple of weeks ago, and I would have knocked out both at the same time (as I am doing shortly, after this apt-get finishes). There are a number of maintainers who seem to have agreed that the way this NMU was done is incorrect. I don't think anyone is arguing that the fix isn't needed; I don't, however, appreciate being treated like an MIA maintainer and having my responsibilities coopted. There is no urgency that requires an NMU if it's not important enough to file a bug. -- Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie, http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die. Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_