Re: Release sprint results - team changes, auto-rm and arch status
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 05:56:51PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Niels Thykier <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 2013-11-28, 21:04:
> >We believe that it should be acceptable for most uploads to
> >unstable to be uploaded with medium urgency, to reduce the delay
> >for testing migrations.
> Huh. §5.6.7 says that Urgency “is a description of how important it
> is to upgrade to this version from previous ones”. How can possibly
> RT decide that from now on it's more important to upgrade most
I've to agree with Jakub here. It feels wrong to abuse the urgency
to lower the staging periode in unstable before a testing migration.
If the package is not fit for a release, or disruptive, or whatever I
had the feeling that there is a mutual understanding within the project,
to use experimental. If a transitional period within unstable is required
without breaking testing we often enough used rc bugs against our
own packages. And now we start to fiddle with urgency settings and place
bets on the required testing periode in unstable?
We can of course discuss lowering this hold back time archive wide, but
working around the discussion with this proposal feels not right.
There we were, the three of us, the thief the king and I.
Finally, we were forced to see, we were equals in the night.
[Streetlight Manifesto - The three of us]