Re: A great weekend for Debian
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> I think you're overly optimistic :-) Most of the simple RC bugs
> (related to the xlibs-dev transition) have been fixed; there aren't 90
> more like those.
I got home from work and have second thoughts about the email I
previously sent. I think I am a bit pissed off by this "simple RC bugs"
statement. I don't personally care about my own credit, but I think the
people who worked in this transition deserved the email Joseph Smidt
sent and an acknowledgement for their work. Some of us have been barely
doing anything else in our lives than this transition for 14 days.
I am talking about Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt, Thomas Viehmann, Nico Golde,
Steve Langasek, Victor Seva Lopez and Justin Pryzby, others I might not
be aware of, and Moritz Muehlenhoff, who provided the script that helps
find out the new Build-Depends.
Let me explain. In 14 days, we have gone from a total of 577 reported
bugs to
- Serious policy violations; Patch Available (5 bugs)
- Serious policy violations; Unclassified (34 bugs)
- Pending Upload bugs - Serious policy violations (9 bugs)
That is *impressive*. That amounts to 48 bugs to go. Some of them are
still "easy", and we are still working on them.
There is a *huge* amount of work behind those figures, whether the task
looks tedious, repetitive and low profile to you or not, someone had to
do it, and it has been done.
In the meantime we have also reported MIA maintainers and have given the
packages some love, ie fixing other RC bugs in our NMUs. Sometimes we
have felt inspired and provided "quality" uploads as opposed to fixing
"simple" RC bugs (related to the xlibs-dev transition).
See, for example your patch to libggiwmh, which only takes care of the
xlibs-transition:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi/libggiwmh-0.1.0-1.1-nmu.diff?bug=349452;msg=5;att=1
as opposed to what would have been my pacth:
http://www.amayita.com/debian/xlibs-transition/libggiwmh_toolate/libggiwmh-0.1.0/debian/changelog
But when I wanted to attach my patch to 349452 I was late, you had already
uploaded :)
There is nothing wrong with your patch BTW. That's not what I mean.
The RC bug chart looks lovely:
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
Most of the time, I just NMUed otehr people's changes, but also went
through testing, re-testing, and testing again, also trying to fix
other bugs in the packages, and giving them some love, as I explained
at: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2006/01/msg00168.html
I know it is not the NMU goal to go this far, but I had fun, and got to
work with wonderful people in the proccess. I am also aware I sometimes
fucked up (I broke links2, and have been reported to attach patches for
the wrong packages or to the wrong bug numbers) out of exhaustion :)
There is still major breakage to deal with. A list of up-for-adoption
packages to be reported, maintainers to be pinged, more bugs to me filed
(as in your package is in bad shape, either fix it or orphan it).
It has been also depressing to upload certaing packages in bad shape,
and in cases I have refused to upload at all because of packages being
in terrible shape. Some of the packages that still need to be fixed are
marked for removal.
If you look at http://haydn.debian.org/~thuriaux-guest/qa/ you will
discover that the QA team (which I am sadly not as active in as I would
want to be) is in fact doing quite well and the sad lesson for me to
learn is the incredible amount of people silently dissapearing and
neglecting their packages while we assume those packages have a
maintainer.
It leads me to think Debian accounts should expire in a year of no
activity and packages be automatically orphaned, but it is just a side
effect of RC over-dose, and I really need to go back to my own packages
when this is over.
To all of those who have walked this path kudos!
--
.''`. sleep: command not found
: :' :
`. `' Proudly running unstable Debian GNU/Linux
`- www.amayita.com www.malapecora.com www.chicasduras.com
Reply to: