Re: Bug#97671: 88 Priority violations in woody
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:29:29PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > The current system gives the user the freedom to install the package from
> > > incoming.debian.org (if it's not a crypto package). If we delayed the
> > > closing message, users would not have that freedom.
> > I really don't follow. Does the current message tell the user to get stuff
> > from http://incoming.debian.org/, and if not, why not?
> It does not mention incoming, but messages from katie are not the
> only possible way a user may know about incoming.
But couldn't those that know about incoming could also know about
> > If not, how would delaying closing messages until mirror run time in any
> > way stop the user who knew about the incoming (queue/accepted) directory
> > availability from getting their packages right that instant?
> The point is that early notifications means:
> a) Same availability for people who do not know about incoming.
And confusion as to where to actually find the fixed package(s).
> b) Early availability for people who know about incoming.
> If you mean we should make an advertising campaign about the existence
> of incoming, well, yes, we probably should.
My point is that from the closing-message-receiver standpoint, a message
that tells them "The bug is fixed somewhere." is not nearly as useful as
"The bug is fixed somewhere and that somewhere is <URL:here>.".
As it has been said before, the queueing problems in the BTS are no longer a
reason not to send announcements in a batch. It's now mainly a procedural
issue. I would prefer if we gave the submitters more exact information if we
attempt to do it in the most timely manner; otherwise, provide them with the
exact information when it is more convenient (later).
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org