Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process"):
> 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.
apt-listchanges will present the right section of the changelog
anyway.
> 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.
I disagree completely.
Furthermore, of it really does get to 10 versions, containing
absurdities, then the most-recent-version's changelog stanza can
contain a summary of the differences from the previously-accepted
upload.
> 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.
That a bad practice cannot always be detected by tooling does not make
it a good practice.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: