On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 07:04:57AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 02:45:17PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > One could argue about sending the NMU-patch/interdiff to the BTS, but I > > personally do not see much point in it, since (hi Omnic!) you can just > > get it from the archive and sync it yourself. It still makes sense for > > packages where you suspect the maintainer to be inactive/not willing to > > deal with this or (as is the case here apparently) already working on a > > new revision. > > I don't see how this should be a point of contention at all; the requirement > that diffs from NMUs be posted to the BTS has been explicit for a very long > time. It is the responsibility of the NMUer to ensure that the diffs are > delivered to the maintainer for inspection via the BTS.
Yeah, you're right, there's nothing to argue about here. I was trying to state my personal POV, but (i) that's irrelevant and (ii) I was not clear on the general case. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
