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 the DEP: 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. 5.11.1.2 Using the DELAYED/ queue I propose to ask a paragraph saying: "If you do not make your NMU to DELAYED/, you must document your reasons in the BTS." I and others had NMUs on non-RC bugs on team-maintained packages while being active and we are still left to wonder what in our packaging practice was so wrong that it had to be fixed in emergency. Having the reason written in the BTS would help us to improve ourselves. 5.11.2 NMUs, from the maintainer's point of view The last two sentences, "Make sure to include the NMU's changelog entry (not just the line describing the changes) in your own changelog. This is important to allow the ¥BTS version tracking to work.", are misleading on how the BTS work, as they suggest that the version tracking depends on the changelog. Maybe they could be changed to: "Make sure to include the NMU's changelog entry (not just the line describing the changes) in your own changelog if you want to take advantage of the automatic BTS version tracking." I think that both sides made enough efforts, so please do not take this mail as a list of requirements, alhtough of course I would prefer my points being taken into account. I am moving into a place where internet is not yet set up, so do not expect timely answers. Please go ahead :) Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wakō, Saitama, Japan (for the last day !) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
