Re: Meeting Minutes, FTPMaster meeting March 2011
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Monday 28 March 2011 19:43:52 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > So, we have to either accept source-only uploads with the knowledge that
> > some people will upload even more crap, or don't accept source-only
> > uploads at all. There is no "punishment for the bad uploader" option,
> > anyone proposing that is just setting the project up for a lot of
> > aggravation IMO.
> How about putting "bad uploaders" on a low priority queue, so that source
> package from "good uploaders" are built first ?
> This could minimize the impact of source package only upload...
Why insist on a solution that is likely to cause social damage? Why
insist on something that IS going to cause aggravation the very first
time someone decides to complain about it?
There are many other ways to avoid the need of a binary package upload
from a DD's box/PDA/smartphone/laptop/netbook/whatever.
You *WILL* have to build (and _test_) the binary packages anyway,
otherwise you're either a perfect DD that never makes mistakes, or
exactly the kind of DD we don't want near a source-only upload in the
At that point, exactly why should you not upload the entire thing? You
have already built them. You already have to be able to sign the upload
anyway, be it source-only, or source+binary. Very few DDs have to deal
with uploading extremely large binary packages from upload-constrained
boxes, and those are likely to be already using one of the numerous
methods available to them to minimize the problem.
This is off-topic for this thread, and I am repeating all that has been
said before in numerous threads. I will post about this no further.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot