Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On May 26, 2017 2:10:30 AM EDT, Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> wrote:
>* Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> [2017-05-26 04:35:42 CEST]:
>> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 08:57:13 PM Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
>> >  So as long as I don't have the impression that the users of our
>stable
>> > releases are taken into consideration I don't think we can move
>forward
>> > with this in any way.  And as long as there is the impression that
>we
>> > can't communicate about such things then don't blame us for the
>lack of
>> > communication that comes from your end.  I can't be more clear than
>> > that, it isn't our fault that it was chosen to *not* communicate
>that
>> > beforehand, and I'm not willing to suck it up like that and ignore
>that
>> > intentional lack of communication.
>> 
>> I believe if you are willing to allow the jessie-backports updates of
>python-
>> django 1.8.X for security fixes (unless upstream violates their own
>policy, 
>> that's all there will be), we can definitely come up with a solution
>that 
>> avoids the need to do this kind of exception in the future and we'll
>have a 
>> good path forward.
>> 
>> I believe it will take a bit of time for the python-django
>maintainers to 
>> figure out the best plan, but I don't think it's at all urgent until
>after 
>> stretch releases, so we have a few days to sort out that part of the
>plan.
>
> Erm, no.  This is a one-time exception.  If the discussion is delayed
>through again no approaching the stable release team and figuring out a
>plan for this then I rather remove the package or have it upgraded to
>the version in stretch.  Do not delay that discussion because that's
>the
>very thing I pointed out above: it doesn't give me the impression that
>this issue is taken serious and is willing to get handled, and I won't
>grant another exception along that path without a clear plan how to
>avoid that in the future.

I understood you were talking about a one time exception, not a general rule.

> Start communicating now, not in "a bit".  This is the very approach
>that got us into where we are now.

I meant it will take the maintainers a little time to come up with a plan, not defer the conversation to some far future.

>> I'm all for communication.  You may have noticed I wrote a lot of
>emails on 
>> this topic since I became aware of the disconnect between the
>backports team 
>> and the python-django maintainers.  Obviously it will take more
>communication 
>> to get this issue completely resolved, but I think your message is a
>great 
>> basis for working towards getting this all figured out.
>
> I can see that, but again: I don't care at all about the involved
>people, I care about that this gets actively addressed and worked on,
>and *now*, not in "a bit".

Right, but there's some inevitable latency while a plan for the future is developed.

Scott K