Re: fs-uae_2.4.1+ds-2~bpo70+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> wrote:
> 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.
Fair enough. :)
At this point, I'm personally not convinced that this requirement does
more good than harm (and would prefer to see this requirement lifted),
but I at least have a better understanding of why it's in place right
now.
Regards,
Vincent
Reply to: