Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged ‘lenny-ignore’?
* Manoj Srivastava [Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:41:16 -0500]:
> Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> trying to follow the social contract? Is releasing on schedule more
> important than the SC?
When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.
Every developer has tools, and decisions as well. For example, every
developer can make uploads, and they have the power to decide to upload
a VCS snapshot of a package to unstable.
For me, believe it or not, it's very important not to betray the rest of
developers with the actions I take in my role as a release person. Which
is *not* to say I won't take any actions that makes feel one particular
developer betrayed. But I do try to listen to what people have to say
about how we release, I really do.
In the case at hand, I can clearly see some people feel betrayed, and
they're in the right to be so (though IMHO they're not in their right to
speak for the developers at larege). However, and until proven wrong,
I'm convinced the majority of developers don't feel betrayed by these
"lenny-ignore" tags. I'm open to being proven wrong, though.
(If you must know, I also /personally/ believe that it's the task of
those who feel betrayed to prove the release team wrong, and not the
opposite. In my view, the release takes what is in unstable and tries to
make something coherent of it. If you are outraged with what's in
unstable, take it up with the people responsible for it. We just stamp a
number in certain versions of packages, nothing more. Unstable is also
"Debian", you know.)
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Dar Williams - February