Re: First pass all buildds before entering unstable
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:21:18AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> I worry about indirect delays. Scenario: developer A@ do good job with
> packages A, but A requires packages B. What should A do?
> Waiting and not lose the motivation?
> Help B@, maybe with a NMU, but still waiting the canonical time for NMU
> (on normal time)?
>
> Do A@ have knows enought about B to help? (Maybe B is in a other
> language, for glibc, XFree86,.. specific architectures knowelenge are
> maybe required,...
IMHO, We should not warry about indirect delay/problems. It's not A's fault,
thus A should be warranted to be released (in a way or in another): A not
being in testing because of B is "part of the game". The problem which must be
handled is B, and who or how to handle it is too case specific to be
considered here. We have 'help' tag on BTS and specific mailing lists to ask
for help on specific topic.
BTW, when i did NMU i based the delay either on the best practice and on the need
of the fix. I thought it to be reasonable.
> - the developers (maybe requiring not only uploader) could override the
> waiting status in pre-unstable queue.
I do not understand this: what do you mean?
ciao,
--
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they
local LANG="it_IT@euro" | don't depend on the language.
Reply to: