Re: buildd administration
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> I'm pretty sure I saw him do this already, by noting that it increases the
> number of packages that the release and QA teams have to keep track of.
Seems to me that packages which aren't in testing should not occupy
the release team's time at all. Just ignore them entirely.
> Bugs in both categories make it harder for would-be bugsquashers to
> sift through the bug lists to find packages that they can usefully
But I *do* want bugsquashers who are able to help fix the bug to do so!
> If we suddenly decided to release etch next month, what would you do with
> this package -- keep the RC bug open because you think s390 support is more
> important, or ask for the removal of the old s390 binaries because the
> package is worth something to users of other architectures?
I would probably ask upstread and defer to his judgment. My best
guess is that he would prefer it to be released without s390 support,
but he *really* would rather just get the support working, as would
>> You have not pointed at any documentation of maintainer policies that
>> indicates that one must clear an RC bug as soon as possible, for
>> unreleased packages, to push them into testing before the maintainer
>> thinks they are ready.
> Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages
> *out* of unstable.
Really? So now, unstable should be maintained in a releasable state