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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
> > > more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.

> > I don't think it's appropriate for the ftp team to add any other checks
> > without notifying the project, regardless of how many packages are currently
> > affected.  Please make sure you notify the project of /any/ additional rules
> > you apply at archive accept time.

> ACK on this.

> While I heartly welcome this addition, I see the centralization of the
> tag decision process as potentially dangerous; not for "power" reasons,
> but rather for the bad feelings (and related flamefests!) such changes
> can leave behind and for the potential bottleneck risks (nowadays FTP
> master is luckily and finally more stuffed than in the past, but
> tomorrow who knows?).

> So, I revamp a proposal I made in a corner of this thread:

>   Let the QA team decide upon the non overridable lintian errors.

My only concern is that the ftp archive checks not be used to force changes
in Policy.

If the set of tags being drawn from is limited to those that are recognized
as violations of Policy "must" requirements, then I have no opinion on who
should decide which tags are blockers and which ones are not.  If the
candidate tags are *not* limited to that set, then I think we have a
governance problem regardless of who's driving.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: