Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
- don't NMU for feature requests (i.e., wishlist bugs) without the
mai
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > - don't NMU for feature requests (i.e., wishlist bugs) without the
> > > maintainer's prior approval
>
> > Shouldn't NMU's without the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - don't NMU for feature requests (i.e., wishlist bugs) without the
> > maintainer's prior approval
> Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC and
> maybe imp
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > - send mail to the bug with a full diff *before* uploading your package to
> > incoming; two minutes before, two hours before, two days before, it
> > doesn't matter
>
> And make sure that the mail has actually left your system... (real life
> exper
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We should really document the result of this discussion in the
developers' reference, which currently says:
,
| NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are
| encouraged and accepted.
`
This I always interpreted as "
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC and
> maybe important bugs?
No, unless you add some sort of timeframe. MIA or otherwise absent
maintainers are the usual reason why one needs NMUs.
--
"One disk to rule them all, On
Em Ter, 2005-10-18 às 01:03 -0700, Steve Langasek escreveu:
> I think a good balance would be something like:
What if all NMUs are delayed for N days, but if maintainer agrees the
NMU skips the delay...
daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Troub
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Olaf van der Spek]
>> If there's no approval, shouldn't 'that' be fixed also?
>
> Depends on the form of the lack of approval. If there is no reply,
> the MIA process should be started, and if there is a NACK, the NMU
> should not go throught with
[Olaf van der Spek]
> If there's no approval, shouldn't 'that' be fixed also?
Depends on the form of the lack of approval. If there is no reply,
the MIA process should be started, and if there is a NACK, the NMU
should not go throught without further discussion. But one should not
have to waint
On 10/18/05, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Frank Küster]
> > Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC
> > and maybe important bugs?
>
> Well, assuming we want as many bugs as possible fixed before the
> release, and not only RC bugs, I believe NMUs sh
[Frank Küster]
> Shouldn't NMU's without the maintainers approval be restricted to RC
> and maybe important bugs?
Well, assuming we want as many bugs as possible fixed before the
release, and not only RC bugs, I believe NMUs should be possible for
all kinds of bugs.
With maintainer approval if po
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think a good balance would be something like:
>
> - send mail to the bug with a full diff *before* uploading your package to
> incoming; two minutes before, two hours before, two days before, it
> doesn't matter
And make sure that the mail has act
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:33:04AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >It's easy to understand why people are opposed to too-frequent NMUs. They
> >don't want to be seen as bad maintainers for having too many NMUs on their
> >packages; they worry about new bugs being introduce
13 matches
Mail list logo
