On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > The following aims at being written in a form suitable for inclusion in > developers-reference.
Thanks for this summary ... and patch then!
> The NMU procedure (described in developers-reference section 5.11)
> enables other contributors to fix severe problems when a maintainer is
> unavailable,
s/severe//
NMUs can be used for bugs of various severities, it is just the
recommended DELAYED/XX uploads that change. Aside from that, we
shouldn't bind the wording of this recommended procedure to other
recommendation in DevRef, unless we need to. I think removing "severe"
from the above makes the text more neutral in that respect.
> 1. Someone opens an ITO (Intent to Orphan) bug against the package whose
[…]
> Relevant information include: release critical bugs, whether
> the package blocks progress elsewhere in Debian, history of NMUs,
> lack of any recent activity on that package by the maintainer, public
> comments of the maintainer showing a lack of intesting in the package,
^^^^^^^^^
typo? did you mean "interest"?
> 4. When/if consensus has been reached, the package can be orphaned by
> retitling and reassigning the ITO bug accordingly.
I fear a bit the situation "nobody care enough to comment", being
interpreted as lack of consensus. But I do think in that case we should
_eventually_ allow the orphaning to happen (after all 1/0 > 3/1 ACK/NACK
</joke>).
Any suggestion on how to word that properly, without adding yet another
timeout rule carved in stone?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
