Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
On May 24, 2017 7:42:28 AM EDT, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:00:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> > On Wed, 24 May 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >...
>> > > Imagine someone else would have done the python-django backport,
>> > > and would upload 1.10 to jessie-backports today.
>> > > What would you as user do?
>> >
>> > You are again diverting the discussion to another problem. This is
>> > not my situation... in the general case, the user can't rely on
>> > the version in jessie-backports to not change in backwards
>incompatible
>> > way.
>>
>> This is not a diversion, this is actually the core of the problem.
>>
>> Should backports follow a general and predictable policy,
>> or should they follow whatever suits best the personal
>> usecase of the developer doing the backport?
>>
>>
>Backports should follow a policy that makes it attractive to use for
>users,
>and attractive to contribute to for maintainers.
>
>A general and predictable policy is a means towards that end, to be
>sure.
>
>However, "the personal usecase of the developer doing the backport" is
>a strawman in this discussion.
Raises hand.
The use case being raised here is quite normal and not limited to one person.
Personally, I thinking I'm about to orphan a stack of packages and start having customers just pip install everything because it's too hard.
If the policy is going to be updated it seems to me that the bit about asking about uploads that don't fit the normal criteria should be deleted.
Scott K
Reply to: