Re: Backports service becoming official
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> I'm not planning to ever provide backports of any of my packages, and
> while others are welcome to do it, I do not in any way want to be
> bothered by their bugs or upload emails or anything.
Which would call for filtering, not for keeping the bad status-quo.
On the other hand, as the regular maintainer of a package, it is your
responsability to raise the red flags when weird stuff happens to your
packages (such as unexpected uploads, weird bug reports or anything else
that might mean someone is playing dirty tricks). You cannot very well
do that if you're not paying attention.
IMO, backports should be coordinated with the main maintainer. In fact,
I believe the backporter ought to become a co-maintainer, listed in
uploaders, and doing his share of the work.
> So, please keep current way.
No, the current way is extremely user-unfriendly, and very backport
maintainer-unfriendly. It exists only because there was no way to do it
If we need to teach some of our infrastructure to deal with different
branches, so be it. We'll all be much better off in the long run.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot