[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



On Fri, 26 May 2017, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
>  If you consider it somewhat relevant you are arguing that it was a way
> to bring it to the attention of the backports team.  No, it isn't, the
> changelog is not a communication channel.

At least, I was not trying to hide it very much. ;-)

>  And at that time we didn't had the policy queue in place yet.  If this

The package was NEW and someone processed it, I would have expected
that someone to at least read the changelog.

    Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 22:44:16 +0000
    From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>
    To: Debian Python Modules Team <python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Raphaël Hertzog
	    <hertzog@debian.org>
    Subject: python-django_1.8.7-2~bpo8+1_amd64.changes is NEW
    Message-Id: <E1a6nT6-0001Hi-8H@franck.debian.org>

    binary:python-django is NEW.
    binary:python-django-common is NEW.
    binary:python-django-doc is NEW.
    binary:python3-django is NEW.
    source:python-django is NEW.

    Your package has been put into the NEW queue, which requires manual action
    from the ftpteam to process. The upload was otherwise valid (it had a good
    OpenPGP signature and file hashes are valid), so please be patient.

> would have been communicated directly to us we might have found a
> solution, and actually: at that time it was very possible to keep/have
> 1.8 still there for stretch.  So it is relevant in the sense that the

No it was already too late, the package had already migrated:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/731784

I remember having had a discussion with Chris Lamb who uploaded 1.9.0
to unstable without any coordination with the other co-maintainers (while
he only recently re-joined the maintainers to maintaine 1.9.x in experimental).

We discussed the possibility to try to get 1.11 LTS... it was possibility with a
lot of preparatory work that did never happen.

> maintainers chose actively to not have an LTS release for a stable
> release, at a point where the timeframe did allow proper discussion and
> solution finding of the issue.

The situation is as it is. I accept the blame. I would have preferred to have
1.8 in stretch. But now it's too late. We're going to do better for buster.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/


Reply to: