* Stefano Zacchiroli
| Not that I am against requiring the specific NMU mention in the mail
| (especially considering how cheap it as a requirement), but isn't the
| package maintainer going to receive some upload notification for the
| entrance in DELAYED?
No, they are not.
| Out of memory
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 07:01:44PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Out of memory indeed it is not, but probably it should (of course
| only the first time the package enters DELAYED, not each passing day
| ...).
This requires a fair bit more state than the queue currently has. I'm
not sure I
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 05:17:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
In spite of my intention to not comment any further, I just cannot
let this
On 31/05/08 at 04:25 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than
general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole
DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that)
In spite of my
On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:13:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 30/05/08 at 17:28 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
For the record, I don't think that we should remove the language
about informing the maintainer with a mail message; and no, I don't
think we quite have a
On 30/05/08 at 09:15 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you
are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well.
{+After you upload an NMU, you are
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you
can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that
you have the
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 05:47:45PM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will
prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer.
Posting the patch in the BTS does actually send mail to the maintainer.
And it's nicely in time,
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
to use the BTS for communication about NMUs. It was that way already
AFAIK,
On 2008-05-30, Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
to use the BTS for
On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
the DEP says:
- must use BTS,
- usage of DELAYED is recommended.
I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the
maintainer is required *before* uploading (DELAYED or not) by sending
an intend to NMU (conform current policy
On Fri May 30 08:48, Sune Vuorela wrote:
This means that people can opt out using DELAYED, but must post something
in the BTS. I think that the problem is not whether the communication is
public in the BTS or private, it is that something the BTS does not
imply communication. One can send
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the
maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.'
As long as the NMUer sends all the
On 30/05/08 at 17:38 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:45:57AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
Yes, communication is good. We have several media for it, the two most
important ones being mailing lists and the BTS (IMO). This DEP proposes
to use the BTS for
Hi,
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
the DEP says:
- must use BTS,
- usage of DELAYED is recommended.
I would like to see at least two cases where communication with the
maintainer is required *before* uploading
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a
NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that
he should be given time to react.
I'm one of the people who disagrees, but actually I
Hi again,
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:40:53AM +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
- packages that are clearly actively maintained (can be seen from changelog)
- packages that are maintained by active teams
There should normally be no need to NMU in such cases and just preparing a
good patch for the
On 30/05/08 at 12:23 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 07:03:16PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I think that when the mainainer is active, he has to be consulted if a
NMU is planned. As a compromise with those who disagree, I propose that
he should be given time to react.
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
...snip...
You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the
previous message.
... which led me to thinking of what we could do to improve the current
situation while staying consensual.
Because I
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:57:21PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
The new paragraph is: (yes, wdiff is hard to read)
While there are no general rules, it's strongly recommended to give
some time to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to
the DELAYED queue). Here are
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Richard Hecker wrote:
In years past, I would route all email through an employment
account (I basically lived there anyway and it was the best option
to assure timely reception and response ;-). In this environment,
it was common to remind people that vacations could last
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Please come back in 2008! ;-)
You speak as an elder that doesn't want to move forward
But no, you prefer to not explain your problem...
Please stop this pissing contest...
I have read better emails from you, Raphaël.
The
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 04:34 -0700, Richard Hecker kirjoitti:
I just do not see the value when some
Johnny-come-lately decides that all the decisions need to
be reworked.
I'd like to add my voice to the choir of people who think the length of
participation in Debian development should not
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 22:01 +0900, Charles Plessy kirjoitti:
Le Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:50:28PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
Please come back in 2008! ;-)
You speak as an elder that doesn't want to move forward
But no, you prefer to not explain your problem...
Please stop this
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
The difference between using the BTS and asking the maintainer is
that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU
is welcome.
In http://wiki.debian.org/NmuDep I see things like Did you give enough
time to the maintainer? Being
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:01:05PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I have read better emails from you, Raphaël.
Useless personal attack.
The difference between using the BTS and asking the maintainer is
that dropping a patch in the BTS is not asking the maintainer if the NMU
is welcome.
When
On Friday 30 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
But in the situation you mention above, I don't think there's anything
wrong with actually preparing an NMU (except that you may be wasting
time, but that's your own problem). So no reasons are needed for it.
I find your argumentation rather weak, but
pe, 2008-05-30 kello 09:49 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
handled with a high priority.
I agree with that, of course.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
handled with a high priority.
Not that I am against requiring the specific NMU
On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:25:34 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote:
The goal of the DEP is precisely to replace this section 5.11, and
change the usual NMU rules. That's why it's submitted as a DEP (to
allow broad discussion), not as
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:23:25PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 09:49:55AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Sending a patch to the BTS is not sufficient - the mail to the BTS must also
clearly state the intent to NMU, so the maintainer knows the mail must be
handled
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
On 25/05/08 at 09:12 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This is the second call for comments (long overdue) on DEP1.
Hi! Please specify the license for the DEP1 text. Is it DFSG free?
I suggested earlier [1] that DEP0 should say that all DEP's
On 27/05/08 at 20:28 +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Quoting Charles: “In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be necessary
to revert the current work, apply the NMU patch, merge the reverted work
and resolve the conflicts.”
I think I wrote about the 3rd paragraph of 5.11.2, maybe I should
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
3. NMUs are often received with angry comments from maintainers.
[...]
This Debian Enhancement Proposal has two goals:
3. We try to encourage a responsible approach for
Hi Lucas, hi all,
Le Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:27:49PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
When a package has been NMUed, the maintainer should acknowledge it in
the next upload. This makes clear that the changes were accepted in
the maintainer's packaging, and that they aren't lost again.
On Fri, 30 May 2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
Are you sure that the BTS can not operate without the changelogs?
The BTS needs the changelogs in order to know that the next version is
a descendant of the NMU, instead of a descendant of the previous
non-NMU, so you either need to include the NMU
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
...snip...
I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you
can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that
you have the RIGHT to do it no matter what.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 11:56:12AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 26/05/2008, Charles Plessy wrote:
It depends on how important are the VCS and package histories for the
maintainer and Debian. In order to acknowledge the NMU, it would be
necessary to revert the current work, apply the NMU
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 01:00:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Bas Wijnen wrote:
=== nmudiff improvements
Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of
the DEP?
No, because:
= the nmudiff patch is not controversial. Why include it in the DEP?
* If the DEP
On 27/05/2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
The proposal is to use the DELAYED queue as the default way to do an
NMU. This means in particular that the code is already finished when
the mail about the NMU is sent to the BTS. So there is no reason to
allow changes to the patch after this mail; if you
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 08:01:27PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
On 27/05/2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
The proposal is to use the DELAYED queue as the default way to do an
NMU. This means in particular that the code is already finished when
the mail about the NMU is sent to the BTS. So there
Bas Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
This is the second call for comments (long overdue) on DEP1.
Hi! Please specify the license for the DEP1 text. Is it DFSG free?
I suggested earlier [1] that DEP0 should say that all DEP's should be
licensed under a DFSG-compatible license. I recall
* Bas Wijnen
| 5.11.1.2 Using the DELAYED/ queue
[...]
| The DELAYED queue should not be used to put additional pressure on the
| maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are available to
| cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires (the maintainer
| cannot cancel the upload
Bas Wijnen wrote:
Hi,
Hi
=== nmudiff improvements
Can you please just file a bug against devscripts and leave this out of
the DEP?
= the nmudiff patch is not controversial. Why include it in the DEP?
* If the DEP isn't agreed upon, the patch has no reason to be
included in
On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:05:14AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
* Bas Wijnen
| 5.11.1.2 Using the DELAYED/ queue
[...]
| The DELAYED queue should not be used to put additional pressure on the
| maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are available to
| cancel or delay the
Hi Bas, and Lucas,
Le Sun, May 25, 2008 at 08:50:45AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
In some cases, the maintainer might allow direct commit to the package's
VCS repository. We felt that it was not a good idea to include this in
the DEP, because:
Actually, this leaves open the question whether
49 matches
Mail list logo
