[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> While I can understand your frustration, your argument looks flawed to
> me. The measure of refusing _automatically_ uploads being affected by
> (certain) lintian errors can not be classified as "a new duty",
> precisely because it will be automatic. Actually, it has even chances
> to reduce the work-load related to processing NEW.

Hi Stefano,

this is only the first half of the plan, and I completely agree with it. But
according to Luk, packages introducing a new override will be parked to NEW for
examination. This is the problematic part. ([🔎] 4A604816.5030506@debian.org).

We are removing normalisation and discussion in favor of power-based
enforcement. What will be the criteria for deciding that an override is
correct? I guess it will follow the same logic as for the copyright summary:
correct if a member of the FTP team thinks it is correct. What is the point
having a Policy if we follow that path?

I also understand the frustration of the release team, but to me, hijacking or
removals are the appropriate response to irresponsible behaviours, not a set of
extra rules for which our current experience already expose a flaw: think about
changes in names of binary packages that trigger copyright checks by the FTP

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: