Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> I propose to add "NMUs are usually not appropriate for >>> team-maintained packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS >>> instead." to the bullet list. >> It really depends on the team. There are small teams where all members >> might become unresponsive at the same time. I don't think that we >> should special-case this. > > Yes, it probably does depend on the team. But several people have raised > this point now, which probably means that it _is_ a real concern. When > are you (the proposers of this DEP) going to start listening to your > peers instead of dismissing their concerns? > > A lot of packages are team-maintained not only because it is more fun to > work together, but also because those packages (or groups of packages) > are more complex, or have interactions that may not be obvious at first > glance. Which means that there may well be a bigger likelyhood that an > NMU will break things. > > "All members of a team becoming unresponsive" is possible, agreed. > But it is a hell of a lot less likely than "at least one member of the > team being able to respond to urgently needed changes if appropriately > notified".
So, why should there be any special treatment as they are more likely to respond early anyway? Or are you questioning normal NMU intents, RC/RG bugs and d-d-a announcements as appropriate notifications? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
