Elie Rosenblum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:25:30AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:19:17PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:16:11AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > Technically it wasn't. The upload is still in the DELAYED queue, which > > > > is really just a convenient automated way of saying "I'll NMU this > > > > package in <n> days if I don't hear anything", with the added bonus of > > > > allowing the maintainer to poke at it and see exactly what would go in > > > > in the absence of a maintainer upload. I usually explain this when using > > > > the delayed queue. > > > > > > I assume you also submit a bug. > > > > Quite. > > Would you agree that performing an NMU without a BTS entry is wrong? > > > > Do you generally do this without leaving a bug for a few days first? > > > > In the case of the perl transition I've been given to understand by the > > actions of other developers that the -devel-announce post on 31st July > > was enough. Otherwise no. > > I see. > > Well, I disagree with this (as do I believe some others), but only > in that no NMU should be done until the bug has existed for a few > days (if nothing else, this addresses the distinct possibility of > NMUs actually breaking stuff, which has already been brought up in > this thread). I'm probably not going to convince you of this, any
The Bug existet since 31st July even if it wasn't formaly in the BTS against your package. > more than you will convince me that I'm wrong here. I have not, > however, been hit with this general case...I've been hit with an > irresponsible maintainer performing an NMU without submitting a > bug at all, even if it was 5 minutes before he uploaded. This is > just plain wrong, and something that can cause us really serious > problems if people start to imagine that it's acceptable - > especially since we have little control over which keys can > successfully upload any given package. In the case of something so trivial as causing a recompile for a problem that has been known for some time the warning given by the delayed upload should be enough. Do we realy need to mass-file bugreports for this? Thats the alternative to mentioning something like the perl transition on -devel and then fix it in a group effort some time afterwards. You might have a point in general but not in this case. Just my 2c of though, don't blame anyone else. Goswin