Sam Hocevar a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007, "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" wrote:
Could you please avoid sending NMU's diff to an active maintainer ?
Adam, being aggressive towards beginners taking part to a bug
squashing party and trying to learn and improve Debian is not
tolerable.
Stop objecting to NMUs and considering them an accusation of being
MIA. That's not what NMUs are, they are just a way to improve Debian.
And do not claim you are active if you can devote energy to oppose
an NMU, yet do not apply a trivial patch (#368505) that fixes a serious
boot time breakage and has been sitting here for one year and a half.
Hi Sam,
It wasn't aggressive, at least for me it wasn't.
I just didn't understand at all why someone wanted to upload a NMU with
a broken patch while I was aware of the issue and planned to work on it.
A fixed package has now been uploaded, that really fix the issue.
Please look at fuse maintainers again. I'm not the maintainer.
I had to work on fuse because the package was heavily broken and lead me
to serious issues for my ntfs-3g package.
This bug was open ages before I start working on fuse and I'm not aware
at all of this issue.
If you can confirm the attached patch work, I'll plan to upload a fixed
fuse asap.
Could you please tell me how would you have reacted if someone wanted to
upload a broken NMU for a package you're maintaining ?
I should have answered faster to this bug report, and the NMUdiff
submiter's should have contacted me before wanting to upload a NMU.
Both are responsible of this glitch, it's not only my fault...
Regards, Adam.
