Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 21:52:13 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20180406185213.GU9516@localhost>
- In-reply-to: <20180306234052.uqfem23s3fa7vjc7@layer-acht.org>
- References: <1519992057.4858.59.camel@gmail.com> <1893013.LmmmIjQQCK@kitterma-e6430> <87k1uqw649.fsf@iris.silentflame.com> <1540879.qCIL3hyMBs@kitterma-e6430> <23198.45303.423178.598929@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <20180306165455.ogyieokxwilpszbo@angband.pl> <20180306234052.uqfem23s3fa7vjc7@layer-acht.org>
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:40:52PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 05:54:55PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > With my one of most active sponsors hat on: the current policy is that a
> > version that has never hit the archive must not have a separate changelog
> > entry, unless there are non-negligible users (such as a derivative, upstream
> > repository or at least the package being deployed to multiple users at a
> > workplace). A past history is more acceptable than repeated attempts for an
> > upload.
> >
> > This is what I was taught, and what I not only recommend but also require of
> > sponsorees. There seems to be a concensus on -mentors that this is the
> > right way.
>
> with my sponsoring hat on, I will be unhappy if someone reuses version
> numbers and I will ask to never do this again. I very much agree with
> Ian's position that this is bad.
>
> As a sponsor, I'm a non-negligible user and I want to sensible be able
> to not having to again review stuff I already have reviewed.
>
> If you have put it on mentors.d.n, it's out in the public.
As a strict policy this would create more problems than it solves.
A version is published to our users when it gets accepted into
the archive.
Readable information in apt-listchanges is IMHO more important
than theoretical discussions around whether something submitted
to mentors.d.n is public.
A changelog is also permanent, and people might read it decades later
for understanding packaging decisions - already today it is not uncommon
to check 20 year old changelog entries for that.
For either of the above a weird version history or 10 Debian revisions
until a new maintainer got her first packaging attempt correct are
not optimal.
Or a more funny issue:
How would you notice a version reuse in all cases?
A package uploaded to mentors.d.n. adopting a package with
"New maintainer" as only change is usually a reject. If some DD does
the same years later, there is no record anywhere that this version
was already taken by some random person from the internet who once
upon a time uploaded it to mentors.d.n.
> cheers,
> Holger
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: