Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 01:00:08PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
>...
> > What happens outside of our archive (e.g. in Ubuntu or .debian.net)
> > is nothing we officially provide to our users.
>
> I don't agree, but that's just chopping semantics over "officially
> provide". That a colliding source version was not "officially
> provided" (whatever that means) does not mean that it is good practice
> to generate this kind of confusion.
I think we are at the point where we both have to agree to disagree
on what is good practice here, and accept that different people have
different established practices regarding what they want from their
sponsorees here.
> You'll see the other thread on -devel at the moment where a package
> was mistakely left languishing in NEW; one significant causal factor
> in this mistake was IMO-inadvisable reuse of the version number.
For NEW I would agree with you.
Uploading to NEW can only be done by a DD.
That's an official upload and not from a random person,
and the quality is at least what is at mentors after
10 updates from a first-time contributor.
> Ian.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: