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

Re: Status of GDAL


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 01:55:16PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> The automatic testing removals put much pressure on our understaffed team
> to fix the issues to prevent the removal. So I'm not a fan of the fake-RC
> bugs idea.

My idea was like

   gdal-1.10 in testing (with no RC bugs)
   gdal-1.11 in unstable with bug "do not move to testing" severity serious

I can not see why in this case gdal-1.10 should be removed from testing.
> I'm not sure what the benefit would be to prevent packages from migrating
> from unstable to testing.

If gdal-1.11 would move to testing and this would break some build -
than we would receive some autoremoval bug.  My plan was to prevent

> Uploading with urgency=low would increase the
> time from 5 to 10 days. When packages enter testing, the user exposure
> increases significantly, resulting in valuable feedback. Why would we want
> to delay that?

To make sure no "does not build from source" bugs we are not under
control will occure in testing.
> > (even
> > if I'm wondering how long your DM-process is lasting ...)
> The progress on my NM process is slow because I'm procrastinating on the
> bad-licenses vs DFSG task. That's mostly due to my not ideal balancing of
> available time and things to do for Debian, I'm currently prioritizing
> packing work over other tasks.

OK.  I was just wondering whether there might be other show stoppers.
> The first two weeks of August I'll have significantly more time to
> dedicate to that and other tasks.


Thanks for all your work



Reply to: