Re: NEW processing
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 22:01:45 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 03/12/08 at 19:52 +0200, George Danchev wrote:
> > I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of
> > bugs in Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for
> > autobuilders caused by these subsequent uploads meant to bring the
> > package(s) in a technically sane shape, that is what would have been
> > rejected by the ftpmasters in the first place.
>
> Buildds are machines, that only eat power. Unless we have a GR to
> change the SC to "Our priorities are our users, free software and the
> environment", I don't think that we should value power higher than
> DDs and users' frustrations.
I still think that you are barking the wrong tree. Instead of lowering quality
by abolishing already established and working safe-guards, just add more
manpower to NEW processing task or accept it as it is.
> > So, it is much better these to be detected and probably rejected
> > before doing any more harm on their way. Low quality packages won't help
> > users either, nor these users get the finally fixed and brought into
> > relatively sane shape package faster.
>
> I'm quite sure that most of our users would value "getting all new
> versions of important software a week earlier" higher than "get packages
> later, but with less packaging bugs". As already pointed out in this
> thread, lots of people use Ubuntu despite the (perceived) lower quality
> of universe packages :P
In that case, you don't leave people the option to choose between `newer
packages' and `more stable packages'.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: