Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a maintainer > completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without > acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby reintroducing the problem the NMU > addressed. This happened t

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Lars Wirzenius
ke, 2008-08-20 kello 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog kirjoitti: > The maintainer is still king and if he decides that the NMU was not a good > idea, he would have no other choice than skipping a revision in the > changelog. That would be confusing. It would, however, make things a bit more explicit t

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 20/08/08 at 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a > > maintainer > > completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer version without > > acknowledging the previous NMU, thereby

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Thijs Kinkhorst
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 10:06, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 20/08/08 at 09:38 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > The past weeks I had several encounters with the situation that a > > > maintainer completely overlooked and NMU and uploaded a newer v

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > But perhaps we need another mechanism to signal this. Consecutive uploads to > the same distribution should not cause previously present version entries to > disappear from the changelog. Maybe the archive can reject an upload that > misses a changel

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Simon Josefsson
Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > After a long delay, here is a final call for reviews and comments for > DEP1. Hi! A meta-issue: It would be nice if your DEP1 was freely licensed. I didn't see a license statement in your text, could one be added? Thanks, /Simon -- To UNS

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Felipe Sateler
Raphael Hertzog wrote: > It works well except when the same package version is in two consecutive > release. > > 1.0-1+sarge1 > 1.0-1+etch1 when we really want the opposite. That's why > this scheme was invented. I agree that it's not very nice though but i > couldn't find anything "cleaner". Sh

Re: DEP1: Non Maintainer Uploads (final call for review)

2008-08-20 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 07:35:51PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote: > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > It works well except when the same package version is in two consecutive > > release. > > 1.0-1+sarge1 > 1.0-1+etch1 when we really want the opposite. That's why > > this scheme was invented. I agree that