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

Re: Delegation for the Release Team

On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 15:24:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

FWIW, I have no strong opinion if something about NMU rules should be
in the RT delegation; just adding some experiences / data points:

> > Do you see a problem with the current NMU recommended practices, that
> > you would like to fix? [...]
> Well, Neil raised the question of bug squashing parties.  They aren't
> mentioned in the dev ref.

From my experience, I never had the need for different NMU
practices/rules during BSPs. NMUs are NMUs, no matter if I'm sitting
at home fixing RC bugs or around a table with other Debian guys.

Looking into the d-d-a archives, I find something about NMUs during
BSPs in May 2007 (<20070513172244.GA14578@solar.ftbfs.de>) for the
last time, and then (and since then, e.g.
<47CCF6CE.7050004@debian.org> in March 2008) the "everlasting BSP"
announcement in September 2007 (<20070901130447.GH27719@zomers.be>).

AFAICS this made its way into DevRef via #625449 in March 2011.

In <20110329095102.GX37987@feta.halon.org.uk> (which leads to this
bug / DevRef change), the RT mentions that the "perpetual 0-day NMU
policy ... has worked well for the past five years, and so will be
submitting a bug against dev-ref to make this official."
> Also, the release team have historically occasionally put out
> announcements that NMU rules would be relaxed for other reasons, such
> as for release goals.

The last occurrence I found in a quick look in the d-d-a archives was
from March 2009. (<20090302105458.GA3762@rivendell>)
> So I think the current dev ref text doesn't reflect our recent
> practice.

My impression is different: I think recent (as in: quite a few years
already) practice is exactly as it's written down in DevRef.
> > I'm asking because the current ones have been
> > defined 2.5 years ago, and I don't remember much discussion about them
> > since then. Maybe we could save everybody's time, and have that
> > discussion about who is allowed to change them when there's a change
> > that someone wants to do.
> Perhaps it's just that everyone had thought that the release team's
> announcements are sufficient to make exceptions to the rules in the
> dev ref.

Maybe, except that there haven't been any I'm aware of since the last
DevRef change :)

> But AFAIAA pretty much everyone has gone along with it all this time
> and deferred to release team decisions without questioning the basis
> of their authority (that question having only arisen as a side-effect
> of the team's DPL delegation).  That suggests that the release team
> have done well at making these decisions and should continue to do so.
> In which case the right fix is to regularise the basis for their
> decisionmaking.

Again, no objection from me against writing down somewhere that the
RT has a privileged role in adapting NMU rules, in case this will be
considered necessary at some point in the future.


 .''`.  Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer  -  http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Davy Graham: Pretty Polly

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: