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

Re: Automated removal of RC buggy packages



On 12.11.19 00:00, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Moritz" == Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org> writes:

     Moritz> Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> schrieb:
     >> One maintainer doesn't get to block the removal of an entire
     >> stack like Qt4.  I think there's a reasonable point of discussion
     >> about when RoQA is appropriate, but there comes a time when stuff
     >> just has to go.  That doesn't make it a free for all, but for
     >> old, unsupported libs we should have a bias towards action.

     Moritz> We should even work towards automating this further; if a
     Moritz> package is RC-buggy for longer than say a year (with some
     Moritz> select exceptions) it should just get auto-removed from the
     Moritz> archive.


if you do this, please standardize a way for a maintainer to flag that
they don't want a version package in testing.
I had a package that was "RC buggy" for a couple of years because I
didn't have confidence in the stability of the over the wire protocol.
Similarly I've had RC buggy packages because I wasn't confident in my
ability to provide support across a stable release.

why do you even consider such uploads suitable for unstable? That's something which should go to experimental. And I would like to see some automatic demotion from unstable to experimental for packages with RC issues which are not fixed for some time.

Matthias


Reply to: