On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
In an effort to move the discussion forward, here is a new version of
the proposed section 5.11.1. (Bas Wijnen didn't have a chance to have a
look at this yet)
It tries to address the comments about communication with the
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
The fundamental thing we disagree on is that you think creating a
patch and doing an immediate upload to DELAYED is an acceptable
workflow for any kind of issue.
Yes. Not recommended, but certainly acceptable. With a long delay, of
course.
My
On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
I would of course do that. But you do indeed ask me to hide the
package? And after, say, 3 weeks have passed and nothing happened
(which is unlikely, but possible), I can upload it to DELAYED/7? Then
why couldn't I upload to DELAYED/28 in the first
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008, Frans Pop wrote:
If you want to create a package for local testing, fine. If you
create a package for upload: no. In some cases packages should not
be NMUed at all. Or certainly not before the maintainer has had a
chance to review the patch *at a time when it suites the
On Tuesday 03 June 2008, Don Armstrong wrote:
No matter what is done, there is a time limit for the review of
patches which fix RC bugs, whether stated or not. If a maintainer is
unable to respond to a patch for an RC bug in a reasonable timeframe,
they should expect an NMU. It matters little
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 09:02:18PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
Basically I and several others have been asking to add something that
effectively (and more explicitly than in the current proposal) says:
Please consider before you NMU if just contacting the maintainer
isn't likely to more effective than
Le Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:07:45AM +0200, Bas Wijnen a écrit :
While I agree with this principle, I have one comment: IMO posting a
patch (with explanation of what it fixes and why, and that an NMU to
DELAYED has been uploaded) to the BTS is an appropriate way to notify
the maintainer.
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
from happening is writing a mail to N (and the BTS). The only
difference is what to say (please cancel the
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:01:00AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
While I agree with this principle, I have one comment: IMO posting a
patch (with explanation of what it fixes and why, and that an NMU to
DELAYED has been uploaded) to the BTS is an
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:43PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
What is the difference for the maintainer between these? Not the time
required for M; in all cases, the most M needs to do to prevent the NMU
from happening is writing a mail to N (and the
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
You don't agree that I agree with you?
OK, I misread that. Sorry.
The fundamental thing we disagree on is that you
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 02:07:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 02 June 2008, Bas Wijnen wrote:
No, I don't, I agree with you that this would be unacceptable.
Right, and that is where our opinions _do_ differ fundamentally.
You don't agree that I agree with you?
OK, I
Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On 31/05/08 at 23:43 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
the intro, which didn't really add any value.
Agreed.
+ * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 00:42:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks oh, that's an old
issue and the fix seems
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 00:42:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks oh, that's an old
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
[1] With one exception: mails with large attachments may be accepted by
the BTS, but not reach the maintainer. For example, lists.d.o has a size
limit, while bugs.d.o does not (#475682).
You have to make a point somewhere. Everything
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 12:22:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
5.11.1 When and how to do an NMU
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.
And we are they not able to respond to the bug
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:29:23PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
... and IME they usually *are* for active teams, so I'm not sure I can
buy your argument. I rather conclude that active teams won't risk
anything with the procedure which is being proposed, while not active
teams will see
On 01/06/08 at 15:29 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
Julien Cristau wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 00:42:57 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
risk here is that the
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 06:08:56PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
On 01/06/08 at 00:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
5.11.1 When and how to do an NMU
I propose to add NMUs are usually not appropriate for team-maintained
packages. Consider sending a patch to the BTS instead. to the
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Frans Pop a écrit :
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
time to the maintainer to react
Hi Lucas,
excellence is definitely what we should aim for :)
Thank you for your efforts. Here are my last comments on
On 01/06/08 at 00:22 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some
time to the maintainer to react
Hi Lucas,
excellence is definitely what we should aim for :)
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
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
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
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
On 31/05/08 at 18:44 +0200, 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
Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
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
On Sat, 31 May 2008 12:20:55 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Steve, Manoj, Charles, Richard, does this address your concerns? If
not, can you propose some additional changes?
This new version does sound a lot better.
manoj
--
If voting could really change
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means (private
email, IRC)
IMO private mail is
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about active:
likely to respond and take care of urgent issues
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So far, you (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Charles Plessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been voicing what
are basically the same concerns.
On
On 31/05/08 at 20:41 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
* Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least on the
BTS? Has the maintainer been notified of it? It is also a good
idea to try to contact the maintainer by other means
On 31/05/08 at 21:33 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
So far, you (in [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Charles Plessy
([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]) raised that concern.
Sure, but Steve Langasek, Manoj and Frank Küster have been
On 31/05/08 at 21:02 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
Ok, though I'd rather have a (strong) recommendation to prod
maintainers (in a team or not), then to special case teams...
Sure. For me it is not necessarily about teams, but more about active:
likely
On Saturday 31 May 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I also stressed that in the intro, and removed the second paragraph of
the intro, which didn't really add any value.
Agreed.
+ * If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you
+ tried to contact him? In general it should be
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:18:14PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Because bugs may also have been (or seem to have been overlooked). The
risk here is that the person doing the NMU thinks oh, that's an old
issue and the fix seems so simple and goes ahead and NMUs it, while
there may be very valid
39 matches
Mail list logo
