On 12/17/18 3:06 PM, Rhonda D'Vine wrote: > I think you misunderstand the purpose of backports. It is to offer > newer features from an upcoming release onto a current stable release. As I have already shared earlier, I'm trying to find a way to keep gitlab as an official package in debian. It does require changing the rules or finding a new place for gitlab that does not affect any existing place. I'm open to all suggestions. > Given that gitlab is to get removed from testing it won't be in an > upcoming release. Packages in backports are meant to be release ready. > If we won't ship the package with the next stable release that's a clear > sign that we don't deem it release ready, do we. > >> I am able to provide the latest security updates via my personal repo at >> https://people.debian.org/~praveen/gitlab-11/ (gitlab 11.5.4) but really >> like this to be in official stretch-backports repo. > > For now a personal repository seems to be a good choice. > >> I'm willing to volunteer for backports ftp team. > > Please don't volunteer for the team if you just want to do it for your > personal gain, and to circumvent the guidelines we have set up. I don't know if efforts to keep a package in official repos can be characterized as personal gain. I offered to volunteer because I'm adding extra work to backport ftp team as there was no other reply from you before I asked explicitly on the status. Isn't it natural to volunteer for stuff you care about in debian? > Writing > bugreport entries like this clearly shows you don't understand the > rules of backports: > > | Would it be okay to close this bug after buster release? That would > | make it possible to provide newer versions via buster-backports. For > | buster+1, we can remove it from testing again, close to freeze. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915050#65 > > That sounds clearly that you want to hack the rules and don't want to > respect them. That's not the best basis to hold a discussion about > something you want us to do. > Are you saying these rules are so holy we can't even discuss changes to them? Is rules made for the people or are people supposed to follow rules blindly? > Also, I have a question: From a quick grep'n'count you have 41 packages > in the NEW queue. You have already 312 packages in stretch-backports. > Are you doing this all by yourself? Who could/is willing to take over > that huge amount of packages to keep them in sync if your attention > shifts or if you burn out? We have had a fair amount of > single-point-of-failures in the past and am burnt already by that, and > I don't wish you any bad, but I've seen people burn out with way less on > their shoulders. Who else is behind this huge effort? We are speaking > about more than 20% of the backports archive solely on your shoulders > here. With all due respect and absolute in awe but that gets me worried > a bit. I get paid to work on gitlab packaging, so I can spend as much time required to keep these packages in shape. The real challenge is when I cannot fix some issues, I usually get good support from both ruby team and gitlab upstream in case of issues. If that situation changes, we can surely think about alternatives. > Thanks, > Rhonda >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature