Re: More 5 november in the release schedule
]] Marc Haber
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:24:20 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
> <wouter@debian.org> wrote:
>
> >If the release team is willing to consider exceptions when
> >the automated machinery was jumping the gun a little, however, then
> >okay, I think it might be a good idea to try this out.
>
> If you only get an exception if your package is so important that the
> press will mention us like "Debian stretch is missing the important
> foo package", then I wouldn't want to even try this. If getting an
> exception is the normal case, then, fine, try it. But why would be
> bother to write this in policy if we intend to do this as the normal
> case?
I don't understand why you think the criteria for allowing a package
back in is «is important». It might just as well be «is the maintainer
doing an honest effort here, or is it just a drive-by upload?» or
something else. I'm not going to pretend to be able to read the release
team's collective mind.
> >Being rigid about such policies is never a good thing, though.
>
> Yes. And I am afraid that this policy is being as rigid as a two inch
> steel wall.
It sounds like you have had very different interactions with the release
team than I have. In my experience, they're doing a difficult job, and
doing it well, trying to accomodate everybody while still making
progress towards releasing.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: