Re: fs-uae_2.4.1+ds-2~bpo70+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Wed, 21 May 2014, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Peter Palfrader <weasel@debian.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 20 May 2014, Romain Francoise wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Argh, forgot the -v option for debbuild. Fixed upload will be
> >> >> > there in a minute.
> >> >>
> >> >> Hopefully some day the lintian patch in #732225 will get picked up and
> >> >> this won't happen anymore...
> >> >
> >> > Or we could just get rid of this nonsensical, make-work requirement.
> >>
> >> To be honest, I've never understood the purpose of the "include
> >> changelog entries since stable in your .changes" rule. The only place
> >> where they're visible is debian-backports-changes@l.d.o; what
> >> difference does it make to subscribers of that list if _all_ changelog
> >> entries since stable are sent to the list or not, and is it worth the
> >> extra cost and hassle (in terms of additional developer time spent on
> >> re-uploading packages that fail this requirement)?
> > There are several users reading the changes list to see what changed in a
> > backport. Same counts for me (ftpmaster) when reviewing packages.
> > A few months ago I made a survey if we should remove that requirement but it
> > had no majority.
>
> I must have missed that particular survey, then...
>
> It's certainly not the only way to see changes done in a backport
> (fetching the changelog manually does the job equally well, although
> it is less convenient). I guess the question to be answered here is
> whether the frustration and time lost due to the "-v" requirement is
> worth the added convenience of having a full set of changes sent to
> the list for each upload.
>
> Just curious, as backports ftpmaster, do you think that (the
> possibility of) having to reject packages multiple times (and the cost
> in terms of additional time spent reviewing the queue, and frustration
> from having to repeat this over and over again) outweigh the benefits?
It is not a question to ask us. As long as the majority here thinks it is
useful we will retain the requirement. We (the ftpmasters) think it is
useful, but we won't retain on it if nobody else wants it.
Alex
Reply to: