On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:58:57AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 03/05/11 at 15:38 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > I agree that the resulting wording of patch is suboptimal, and that > > recommending 0-day NMUs is not the way to go. We are rarely in need for > > action in less than a couple of days in Debian, so the current policy > > seems fine to me. > The Developers' reference gives recommendations to developers, it is not > binding. If you think that a RC bug needs to be fixed with a 0-day NMU, > you are still free to ignore the recommendation and proceed with your > 0-day NMU. However, in the general case, I don't think that we should > *recommend* 0-day NMUs. >
I'll repeat again, that this has been the policy for the last 5 years. This bug is an attemt to document what is actually happening. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110504094334.gd...@feta.halon.org.uk
