Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Gert Wollny writes ("Re: Urging for solution to the slow NEW queue process (completeed)"):
> I might add that in case of the package I was talking about there vtk7,
>  I got another reject because I used the same version for the re-
> upload, and after that long time it was assumed that the comments that
> were already stored in the ftp-masters data base refereed to this
> upload (*).

Oops.  Thank you for providing ammunition for my position (as
discussed in another thread here on -devel) that reusing version
numbers for different contents is a bad idea, even when the previous
versioni was not accepted into the Debian archive but merely shared
with (for example) reviewers or ftpmasters.

> However, after pointing this out to Chris Lamb and re-
> uploading the package another time he checked and accepted it in less
> then 24 hours (big thanks again).

It strikes me that if there were comments in the ftpmaster database
suggestiong the package should be rejected, the package ought to have
been rejected, rather than languishing in a queue.  That would have
brought the confusion to light right away.

But maybe I don't understand the process.

> *) I wonder if and how this data base is actually accessible for non-
> ftp members?

I see little reason why it shouldn't be.  DYK if it is in the same
postgresql instance ?  We already mirror the main archive db to
somewhere dd's can read it.

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.