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

Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Because:
>  * Discussions about the RC bugs can be more effectively dealt with
>    using our existing discussion mechanisms, including primarily the
>    Debian BTS.  Compared to REJECT mails:
>      - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent
>      - Discussions in the BTS are better organised
>      - Discussions in the BTS can have wider participation
>      - Discussions in the BTS are better archived
>      - Discussions in the BTS have better metadata
>  * Publishing a work-in-progress in the Debian archive enables more
>    people to more easily help improve and fix it.
>  * Once a package is accepted metadata about it, and parts of it, are
>    automatically published by a variety of Debian services, making it
>    much easier to work with - for example, one can see who the
>    maintainer is and what its issues are.
>  * ftpmasters are already far too overloaded looking for problems like
>    unredistributability, dfsg-nonfreeness, malformed packages,
>    breakages of the archive, etc.
thanks! nice summary.

>  * It is not ftpmasters' role to determine whether a package is
>    RC-buggy; that task is for the Release Team.

point taken as well.

still I think we should only stuff in unstable which is suited for
testing. So while you have convinced me that it's good to have those
packages in Debian I now think that experimental would be a fine place
for those, but not unstable.


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: