Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
* Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> [2017-05-26 15:19:03 CEST]:
> On Thu, 25 May 2017, Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> > I rejected the package in the light of that we always want security
> > fixes to go through unstable/testing to also assure that those releases
> > are fixed.
>
> The security team is already making sure that unstable/testing gets
> security fixes. And Django is probably among the best packages in terms of
> security support as we have been handling security updates ourselves
> (not putting much burden on the security team).
That might well be - but how should I know that. I would reject a
similar package in a similar way when there is no communication and no
clear indication why a simple backport from testing isn't possible.
Which I still see that it would be possible - although I understand the
reason that you failed to provide a version for stretch that would be
suitable for a stable release and thus need to do it this way.
If it would have been communicated in time it would had been clear at
that point that 1.8 belongs into stretch and not an intermediate non-LTS
version. But I understand that at this stage of the release that that's
not possible, so we are stuck with what we got now and should try to
make the best out of it.
> So this should not be a ground for a reject, really.
See above, I very much beg to differ.
> I have already announced what I believe to be the best way forward for buster:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/05/msg00168.html
Thanks for agreeing on that way to avoid the situation in the future.
> And thus it would be a no-brainer for stretch-backports since putting
> the LTS version there would be in sync with buster.
Exactly.
> Despite this plan for the future, I would like to say that the usage
> I made of jessie-backports should be allowed because there are other
> teams/packages who will have similar needs in the future and they should
> be allowed to do it without having to ask for exceptions. Or the
> allowed exceptions should be documented.
No, your use of jessie-backports was very much against what we want -
and given the outcome of this discussion I am a bit disturbed to see
that you still don't see that. Thanks for trying to avoid that in the
future.
And a very big NO: "without having to ask for exceptions" receives a
big, fat, blinking, neon "NO". I will always object to having less
communication than we already have about things. Things don't need to
be so long like this thread if they are asked in time and clearly
communicated, not when it's too late already and objecting to reasoning.
As your plan for buster shows, this would had been very much been
avoidable by following the rules instead of ignoring them and waiting
until others notice. It would also have avoided the big pain that Neil
is having due to this.
Enjoy,
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: