Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> In this longish thread I have read one contribution where a developer
> expressed that he was happy about checking his SONAME bumped package
> that was erroneous and luckily ftpmaster found the problem. (Sorry, I'm
> to lazy to reread the archive for the actual link.) My point is that
> this was a *single* voice pro-ftpmaster-check-SONAME-changes. I confirm
> its nice to fix the described error before the package hits the archive
> but the problem would have been spotted most probably afterwards by
> other QA means and the issue could have also be reported by a user via
> BTS.
>
> All other voices of developers in this thread I have read would have
> prefered a faster processing.
This is not a vote.
But if it somehow is, here's my strong +1 to keeping _technical_ checks
for binNEW. This includes SONAMEs.
> Several others here gave good reasons why the biased selection is a quite
> bad idea for refreshing license checks.
But here I agree.
License changes are completely unrelated to packaging changes. Any new
upstream version can include a different license than what was checked.
Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ A dumb species has no way to open a tuna can.
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ A smart species invents a can opener.
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ A master species delegates.
Reply to: