Re: Debian Re-organization proposals
Bdale Garbee wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 87vhqlej5q.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com> you wrote:
>
> : This is predicated on the assumption that maintainers are
> : going to exercise judgement in promoting a package to stable; things
> : break down (but no worse than the current state) if people, either in
> : error, or impatience, promote packages to stable.
>
> It is conceivable that moving a package to a declared "stable" state could
> require that the package revision not have been superceded for some period
> of time, that there be no new bugs filed against that version of the package,
> and that the maintainer says "ok". Exceptions, as always, possible but
> frowned upon.
The way this could work is that as soon as the other conditions are
met, a mail is sent to the maintainer to ask if the package is ok for
inclusion in stable. The maintainer can then reply with "yes, that's
fine" or "no, hold it for N more days".
This way, maintainers don't have to keep track of all those versions :)
(It might also help highlight the maintainers-gone-MIA, since their
packages aren't getting into stable.)
A separate control address could be used to manipulate package status
directly when exceptions are necessary, similar to what we do with the
bug tracking system.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: