Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 30/05/08 at 18:24 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49:14AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> Now, what we don't agree on: >>> - I think that giving some time should only be very strongly >>> recommended, but not mandatory. >>> - You think that giving some time should be mandatory. >>> I think that our opinions are basically the same. The difference is that >>> you want to write something in stone, while I prefer not to impose rules >>> where it's not necessary, because: >> This is begging the question. Experience tells me that the sort of rules >> under discussion *are* necessary. > > You are still talking about the rule "The maintainer *MUST* give some > time to react before uploading the NMU", right? > >>> - If you make it mandatory, then you have to provide a workaround for >>> cases where it's just not possible to wait. And you also have to list >>> those cases. >> And, so? That's what we have today. What's the problem with this that >> you're trying to fix? > > No, that's not what we have today. What we have today is the release > team deciding that it has authority to change the NMU rules, to allow > 0-day NMUs for bugs older than 7 days old. > - Does the RT really have authority ?
According to the Developer's Reference at least the release manager has... > - 0-day means "no need to give some time to the maintainer". Wrong: 0-day means "no need to give the maintainer *extra* time" > You uploaded a lot of such NMUs yourself, sometimes on packages with an > active maintainer, without even providing a patch on the BTS previously. Only where the maintainer didn't react yet in the time (mostly about 7 days) given... > You realize that this discussion about the "NMUers must give some time > to the maintainer"-rule also affects the current 0-day NMU policy? It does already... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]