Hi, On Freitag, 7. Januar 2011, Philipp Kern wrote: > So we should push the "removals from testing / additions to testing" mails > to -devel instead of -testing-changes? Now that we're in freeze? probably an extra section in the DPN during freezes would be quite useful indeed, cc:ing -publicity for input. Something for wheezy though :) And, btw, I do understand that removals are absolutly necessary to be able to release and that removals will become more neccessary to release in future, lenny had 25k (binary) packages, squeeze 28k and wheezy will sure have more. So, removals needs to be done, but they also need to be communicated _well_ (else where then on -testing-changes, thats a dump, not communication). Another example (for communication): someone blogged just these days about the "0-day freeze" in early August last year. While this _is_ factually wrong (the plan to freeze was long known and public in advance) it is something several people have expressed and which "feeling" I (partly) shared, I was also surprised+affected by the sudden freeze. And I'm aware of the problem of saying "we are ready today, but to give you some slack we will freeze in 3 weeks from today", which will lead to some rushed last minute uploads... but while I acknowledge this leads to some technical problems, I wonder if those can be overcome by increased happiness amongst the developer body at large. It's not only that Debian has many many packages, but also many many developers, which need to steer the same boat. > I didn't understand the tone of the initial mail to -devel neither, given > that the bug was still open and thus sort of unhandled by us. We've asked several times via 606222 (whose maintainer is d-release@l.d.o) and several times on #debian-release - the feedback was basically zero for a month. Considering that the squeeze release was+is progressing nicely, this lack of feedback let me to conlude that squeeze would indeed by released without googleearth-package. So I wrote to -devel and closed the bug to let the project know about this IMHO unfortunate decission - which OTOH I also accepted, I did neither complain nor asked once again. So, I'm sorry, but I dont agree that the tone of that initial mail to devel (<[🔎] 201101061430.37156.holger@layer-acht.org>) was offensive. IMO I was just stating and sharing facts. cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.