On 06/05/11 at 20:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in > > > > dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum > > > > than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e > > > > debian-devel@ or debian-project@. > > > > > > > For example, in > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/07/msg00231.html ? > > > > The NMU policy implemented in dev-ref was discussed on -devel@ in 2008 > > I guess Neil actually meant > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html> , > cited at the beginning of this bug report. Quoting from there: > > > 0-day NMU policy > > ---------------- > > For some time now, we have had a perpetual 0-day NMU policy, and some > > discussion [LDO:0day] was had a while ago. We feel that this has worked > > well for the past five years, and so will be submitting a bug against > > dev-ref to make this official. > > which is a very clear quote and has been circulated via d-d-a. > > I've noted that you question the authority of the Release Team authority > to decide on this, which is one thing (see below about that). > > Nonetheless nobody can argue that the RT didn't bring this topic > up---with more than 1 month of advance---to the most appropriate place, > enabling everyone to comment. (Reviewing the -devel thread you can find > one comment about it. It is by Gregor, has been posted shortly after a > further "ping" by Mehdi on this topic, and it's a positive one. [1]) > > So, looking from the outside, I would be more than ready to consider > this change consensual among d-d-a readers. That of course does not > mean that it is consensual among devref editors, although I would expect > them to follow consensus.
I must admit that I overlooked that part of the release team's email. I just sent a mail to -devel@ to gather more feedback about the change. Maybe it's just me getting old and grumpy ;) > Anyhow, to avoid doubts and the unpleasant sensation of "sneaky-ness" in > ratifying such an important policy, I suggest to proceed as follows: > > - Improve the wording, given that it has been perceived as ambiguous by > various readers. > > I personally agree that it would be good to clarify that maintainers > are not forced to ping bug logs every 7 weeks (although I believe that > at least one message saying "I'm on it" it's at the very least a wise > thing to do to avoid duplication of efforts). The wording might for > instance mention that 0-day NMU-ers should do a best effort to check > out by other means if the maintainer is working on it even if the > buglog is silent, e.g.: by looking at the VCS. Such a precaution > sounds reasonable for 0-day NMUs and at the same time won't add much > of a burden upon the NMU-ers; IME I often looked at the VCS anyhow, to > check if a patch was already available. > > Maybe those who have found the wording ambiguous can help out with a > first draft of that? Regarding my own objections to this policy change, improving the wording and adding precautions won't make them go away. > /me puts on his formalities hat > > Regarding the authoritativeness of the Release Team for deciding on > this, I'm sorry but I have no solid formal ground to rule on that. (I've > been planning to discuss with RT on how to clarify their delegation, but > it's still in the TODO pipe.) So, if anyone feels strongly about that, > this should probably go to the tech-ctte. > > At the same time, it's undeniable that for the past 5 years or more, > people have accepted NMU guidelines coming from the RT. So at least by > folklore people don't seem to have a problem with RT authority on > this. I could look more into this if you, or anyone else want me to > (e.g. by digging archives trying to rebuild RT delegation history), but > I do hope we can solve this in ways where the time of everybody is > better spent than that. I'm really wondering whether people have really been accepting the NMU guidelines coming from the RT, or just ignoring them and using the dev-ref recommendations instead. In the 2010 -bugs-rc archives, there are 390 mentions of "DELAYED/2", vs 711 mentions of "DELAYED", so uploading to DELAYED/2 looks quite popular. (I raised that point in my -devel@ email, you might want to reply there). I also note that you have been following the dev-ref recommendations yourself during RCBW. ;) Regarding the authority of the release team, I very much respect the release team, and highly value the opinion of its members, especially on everything QA-related. But I don't see how defining the policy of uploads to unstable could be formally part of their role. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
