Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote: > This NMU was far away from just > fixing one RC Bug. "far away" is too strong for the trivial changes which were uploaded; I also think I gave the context and rationale for uploading non-RC changes already, so I wont repeat these here. I will try to not repeat this on packages where you're doing uploads, even if it means lower quality packages in the end. PS: Please Cc: me on replies as I'm not subscribed to debian-mentors@ -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Don Armstrong schrieb am Sonntag, den 05. August 2007: Hi, maybe I wasn't very politly, but I it was late after a hard weekend. I apologize for that. > > So I still consider this as crap. > > Why in the world are you even complaining about this? You're not the > maintainer of the package, and the NMU that was uploaded resolved the > problems correctly, even if it wasn't uploaded to DELAYED like it > should have been and $DEITY forbid, fixed some extra bugs as it went > by. Mostly because I still take care about the packages and the people I sponsor. It was a mistake to not subscribe to the PTS for this package. But I still thinks that most of my points were valid. This NMU was far away from just fixing one RC Bug. > > I'm just the sponsor and wasn't aware of this bug. First time I > > heard about the NMU was yesterday from the mentors system. I already > > ping the maintainer who was on holidays til this weekend. I would > > have reacted tomorrow. > > If you're the sponsor of the package, it is your responsibility to > monitor the packagaes which you sponsor, *especially* for RC bugs and > to fix them when the maintainer which you are sponsoring for cannot or > does not. > > If checking http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=formorer or > subscribing to the PTS for the packages you sponsor is too dificult, > then you should not be sponsoring them. > > For example, instead of responding with vitriol to this attempt to > improve the quality of debian packages, you should be contacting > Sebastian Harl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and helping get #430933 resolved. This bug is only in experimental and is currently resolved upstream. Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> So I still consider this as crap.
Why in the world are you even complaining about this? You're not the
maintainer of the package, and the NMU that was uploaded resolved the
problems correctly, even if it wasn't uploaded to DELAYED like it
should have been and $DEITY forbid, fixed some extra bugs as it went
by.
> I'm just the sponsor and wasn't aware of this bug. First time I
> heard about the NMU was yesterday from the mentors system. I already
> ping the maintainer who was on holidays til this weekend. I would
> have reacted tomorrow.
If you're the sponsor of the package, it is your responsibility to
monitor the packagaes which you sponsor, *especially* for RC bugs and
to fix them when the maintainer which you are sponsoring for cannot or
does not.
If checking http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=formorer or
subscribing to the PTS for the packages you sponsor is too dificult,
then you should not be sponsoring them.
For example, instead of responding with vitriol to this attempt to
improve the quality of debian packages, you should be contacting
Sebastian Harl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and helping get #430933 resolved.
> He did fundamental changes to the package. This is not something
> that should ever be done in an nmu.
If updating config.{sub,guess}, not ignoring distclean rules, and
making a package binnmu safe is fundamental, something is clearly
wrong.
While it's true that those sorts of things should not generally be
present in an NMU, those issues should have been caught before it was
uploaded in the first place; reminding Loïc of this politely would be
appropriate. Responding in this manner is not.
Don Armstrong
--
Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the
intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics.
-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Loïc Minier schrieb am Sonntag, den 05. August 2007: > Hi Alexander, > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > Uploading such an NMU is NOT okay. If you ever intent to upload such a crap > > again, use the delayed queue. > > Please explain what part of this NMU was "crap". I see no new bugs > were filed after the upload. It is crap in a way that it is not like an NMU should be. Please read http://www.us.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html#s-nmu-guidelines For example: Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). If they are not, submit them immediately. or: Upload your package to incoming in DELAYED/7-day (cf. Delayed uploads, Section 5.6.2), send the final patch to the maintainer via the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want to cancel the NMU. So I still consider this as crap. > > > And please only NMU the bug and not other stuff in the package. If you > > have problems with them, open a bug. But don't do this again. > > While you're technically correct, I do think there's some latitude > between NMUs and QA uploads: > - last upload of the package 6 months ago -- despite the new upstream >releases > - RC bug since two months, with no comment from any of the two >maintainers (this includes you) and which had a fix (new upstream) I'm just the sponsor and wasn't aware of this bug. First time I heard about the NMU was yesterday from the mentors system. I already ping the maintainer who was on holidays til this weekend. I would have reacted tomorrow. > Full disclosure: I explained my exact position on the subject to my > sponsoree; French IRC conversation follows: I don't speak french, so without a translation this is useless to me. > My understanding is that my sponsoree did his best to do what is > usually requested to NMs: produce a lintian clean package, and AFAICT, > his changes were correct and fixed lintian warnings. No, there is a reason why the stated guidelines exist. Don't EVER do ANY package changes in an NMU if they are not bug. Linitan warnings are no bugs, some of them are, some not. If its a bug, fill one. But don't do such NMUs. He did fundamental changes to the package. This is not something that should ever be done in an nmu. > If you did notice any regression after this result, could you please > document them? I should be responsible for tracking their resolution, > and as you can see, I took full responsability of the upload by > subscribing to its PTS feeds and requiring my sponsoree to do so as > well. This is not a point of regression, but of following guidelines. They exists to get used, not to get ignored. Alex -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Hi Alexander, On Sun, Aug 05, 2007, Alexander Wirt wrote: > Uploading such an NMU is NOT okay. If you ever intent to upload such a crap > again, use the delayed queue. Please explain what part of this NMU was "crap". I see no new bugs were filed after the upload. > And please only NMU the bug and not other stuff in the package. If you > have problems with them, open a bug. But don't do this again. While you're technically correct, I do think there's some latitude between NMUs and QA uploads: - last upload of the package 6 months ago -- despite the new upstream releases - RC bug since two months, with no comment from any of the two maintainers (this includes you) and which had a fix (new upstream) since two weeks; package was removed from testing as a consequence and blocks sylpheed from entering testing... - no upload of the main maintainer since March / April Full disclosure: I explained my exact position on the subject to my sponsoree; French IRC conversation follows: 17:18 < bigon> lool: tu pourrais me sponsoriser un NMU? 18:32 <@lool> bigon: Ça dépend 18:32 <@lool> bigon: C'est pour un RC ? Bug id ? 18:32 < bigon> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libonig/libonig_5.9. 0-0.1.dsc http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426355 18:37 <@lool> bigon: Je suis un peu partagé sur les changements autre que la nouvelle release 18:38 <@lool> bigon: La doc de Debian est extrêmement claire sur le sujet : le minimum de changement pour une NMU ; personnellement, je fixe aussi les bugs les plus importants de paquets que je NMU, mais pas toujours tous les warnings lintian etc. 18:38 <@lool> Mais parfois, sur des paquets plutôt abandonné, je passe en mode "QA" et je fixe tout 18:39 <@lool> Là je sais pas trop quoi penser puisque c'est un NM qui essaye de maintenir le paquet mais qui n'a pas l'air très actif 18:40 <@lool> bigon: J'ai regardé la page de Max Kellermann, apparemment il a un peu arrêté de faire des trucs depuis mars / avril 18:40 <@lool> Donc je vais uploader tout ce que tu as fait, merci 18:47 <@lool> bigon: Qu'est ce que tu as fait pour préparer la nouvelle release de libonig ? 18:47 <@lool> bigon: Qu'est ce que tu as relu et qu'est ce que tu as testé ? 18:50 <@lool> bigon: Pas la peine d'ajouter 18:50 <@lool> ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.sub)" "" 18:50 <@lool> et ifneq "$(wildcard /usr/share/misc/config.guess)" "" 18:50 <@lool> bigon: puisqu'il y a une b-dep sur autotools-dev 18:51 <@lool> Beurk il y a plein de trucs dégueus dans le rules 23:22 < bigon> lool: j'utilise cette version depuis des semaine avec sylpheed 23:22 < bigon> j'ai un peu regardé le code et les fonction exportées 23:24 < bigon> voila souscrit au pts (this is from a public channel BTW) My understanding is that my sponsoree did his best to do what is usually requested to NMs: produce a lintian clean package, and AFAICT, his changes were correct and fixed lintian warnings. If you did notice any regression after this result, could you please document them? I should be responsible for tracking their resolution, and as you can see, I took full responsability of the upload by subscribing to its PTS feeds and requiring my sponsoree to do so as well. Bye, -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Laurent Bigonville schrieb am Samstag, den 04. August 2007: > Hi, > > Could someone review and upload libonig 5.9.0 > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libonig/libonig_5.9.0-0.1.dsc > > This upload fix a RC bug, see > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426355 Uploading such an NMU is NOT okay. If you ever intent to upload such a crap again, use the delayed queue. And please only NMU the bug and not other stuff in the package. If you have problems with them, open a bug. But don't do this again. Alex - not amused -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Hi, On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 16:01:59 +0200 Laurent Bigonville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone review and upload libonig 5.9.0 > > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libonig/libonig_5.9.0-0.1.dsc > > This upload fix a RC bug, see > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426355 As this is a NMU I think is fair to Cc the maintainer (even if he already ignored the bug since your 21st July notification :-). I'm personally interested in this because this is one of sylpheed package depencencies, so I'll review and eventually upload it if you don't mind. regards, -- Ricardo Mones http://people.debian.org/~mones «You should go home.» signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: libonig NMU for a RC bug
Hi, Could someone review and upload libonig 5.9.0 http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libonig/libonig_5.9.0-0.1.dsc This upload fix a RC bug, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426355 Regards Laurent Bigonville pgp3taUhkxHoM.pgp Description: PGP signature
