Re: Maintaining intermediary versions in *-backports
* Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> [2017-05-24 16:42:47 CEST]:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017 17:21:21 +0300
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > >...
> > > Upgrading 1.7 to 1.10 without going via 1.8 will break all packages
> > > with django as a dependency. That is not a "normal risk", that is
> > > RC - causes data loss.
> >
> > Why is no RC bug filed against the version in stretch?
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=847277
That is no RC bug. Actually I fail to see why it is not considered
release critical that there is no upgrade path from stable to stable+1.
That's a very core principle of expectation.
> > This is not an upgrade path documented in the current draft of the
> > release notes, and a package in backports being required for an
> > upgrade is simply wrong.
>
> I disagree. We have taken great pains to ensure that our own
> documentation covers that jessie-backports is mandatory.
I can understand the pain involved, but additionally to the above, has
it occured to you at any point during that time to get in contact with
the backports team? Backports is not the place to fix bugs in stable,
or for the upgrade of stable.
Again, I very much understand now that this is an extremely
disappointing situation we got into here, but let me put the emphasis
here: backports is *NOT* the place to fix bugs that happen in stable.
Please get your things fixed properly to not leave users of plain stable
in the blind. This is not acceptable, no matter how much I can relate
to the pain it involves.
I'm deeply disappointed that at no point there was the try to get in
contact with us, and I'm sorry to tell you, you got yourself into that
mess yourself without consulting all the involved parties. This is not
our fault, but the way you handled it makes it look like it's ours to
solve. Please understand that the pressure and expectations this puts
on us is a very painful one, too.
Also it shines a completely different light on the situation: This is
different than what Raphael explained. It is not so much anymore about
avoiding to have to adapt some tracker code because the 1.10 version
isn't code-compatible (which IMNSHO is a bad reasoning for not following
the rules), this is much much bigger than what came through so far. And
once again: Please speak to us. In time. That way we can try to find a
solution. Together. And not get into the mess where we are right now
where there not much possibilities to move forward, because either way
is a mess, for everyone.
Personally, I'm really highly disappointed by the whole thing, by the
lack of communication, in time and also about the reasoning coming up
very late, and I'm uncertain where to move with this now. I'm exhausted
from the way the discussion went (and I am aware that I played part in
it, and am sorry or that), but there is one thing I cannot accept:
Playing with fake cards. That winds me up very much.
Thank you a lot, Neil, for giving a very deep view into the issue at
hand.
Off for now,
Rhonda
--
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
Reply to: