Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual
> answers to the questions posed in
I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and the lack of any
additional messages as an indication that there wasn't any additions
to the set of bugs which needed to be fixed before allowing an upload
(though the set of bugs to allow it to transition to testing was
larger)... which apparently wasn't the case.
> I do agree that it's not fair to have a moving set of things to fix
> for uploading to the archive, but I think that just means we have an
> obligation to examine the package carefully and enumerate that set
> of critical bugs, not that we should call it good with the one
> critical bug that's currently been identified to this list.
I'm of the personal opinion that having the package in unstable and
enumerating the set of bugs using the BTS is (in general) the best way
to do just this, though the delayed bounce issue is serious enough to
delay the package. There are certainly serious bugs, but in my
opinion, they're not bugs that are severe enough to stop an upload of
qmail to unstable (or in my original thinking, to experimental.)
It would have been nice for these issues to have been raised at some
point in the week which elapsed between me trying to advance the issue
and calling for votes or at least the two days between me sending a
ballot option and calling for votes so they could be properly
addressed. [As a process issue, is there some better way to let
people know that someone is starting to get close to calling for
votes? Should we Cc: CTTE members directly or ping on IRC?]
1: I had just assumed that sending a mail to the bug was enough, but
it's certainly an option to do something more, so long as everyone
knows what that is.
Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p251