Hi Luk, * Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-01 15:56]: > Nico Golde wrote: > > * Laurence J. Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-06-01 04:00]: > >> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> as the maintainer of imlib2 is MIA I'm going to upload a > >>> 0-day NMU. > >> Thanks for the NMU, but the 12 hour stretch from your initial report > >> until the NMU is quite far from stating someone is MIA. > > > [private: snipped] > > > > Thats not far from stating you are MIA. Contact the MIA team to update this > > then. > > Hmm, it is *far* from stating that he is MIA. As you can see there is > only a nice message sent twice which means it's only the very first > stage which only means some people were concerned...
Which should be enough to justify a security upload without waiting for further maintainer action in my opinion. > There are at least 2 extra stages (inactive, unresponsive), normally > even 3 (prod before inactive) before someone is declared MIA... > > This is all explained in the README file, though if you don't want to > look into the details it's probably better to ask the MIA Team before > jumping to conclusions. Thanks and sorry for my conclusion about his status. I didn't even know about that README file. Maybe the section in the developers reference stating "If you are interested in working in the MIA team, please have a look at the README file" should be adapted to reflect that everyone dealing with MIA information should read that. > You could also see that the information you are referring to is from > 2006 and no action has been done on 2007 which means there was no real > concern in 2007 anymore. This irritates me, don't you add some kind of "OK again" message to this? > PS: The MIA information is supposed to be private and shouldn't be > copied to this bug report... As my post hardly included any sensitive data I didn't see a problem with that. Anyway, won't happen again... Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted.
pgpv8lIZ426FI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
