On 2022-02-01 07:56 -0500, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: > I seemed to remember we retain actual outside council last i knew. Is that > still the case? > This request ought to come from the ftp team if we do do this, fwiw Has anyone on the actual FTP team responded to this thread yet? (sorry, I can't remember who that is currently) Either on Andreas's original simple question: 'Do we still _have_ to keep the binary-NEW thing?' Or this more complex question: Is NEW really giving us a pain:risk ratio that is appropriate? Andreas tried hard to get someone to just stick to the first matter and answer that. I don't recall seeing an answer from FTP-master yet? For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written, and would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not particularly because I currenly have the honour of the 6th-oldest package in NEW (8 months) :-) In general I have found NEW valuable as FTP-masters sometimes spot things that I missed, but the delay, and perhaps worse, the highly uncertain length of the delay (anything from a day to a year), is a significant cost and drag, and it seems increasingly anachronistic as the rest of the software ecosystem seems to accelerate around us (not entirely a good thing, of course). Who needs quality when you can have updates, eh? The combination of binary uploads for NEW and source-only uploads for the archive proper also seems a tad clunky. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature