Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:59:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:50:23AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Anthony, ...
> > I would like to hear your comment on the possibility to override the need for
> > NEW for the creation of some new binary package [...]
> 
> Sven, you bring this up every chance you get, please stop it. You're not
> interested in comments, you're just hoping that you'll get a different
> answer to the last dozen times you've brought it up.

Wrong, i bring it up each time there is evidence that there is some needs in
this area. Three events brought it up here :

  1) Hans wrote some things about there not being enough ftp-masters, to which
  you responded.

  2) Steve as RM complained to the kernel team that he can't get timely
  updates to the packages into testing, because some sub-packages are waiting
  in NEW

  3) NEW seems to be stalled since some weeks or such.

My proposal is a perfect response to this state, made a sane proposal, and
asked a question on why you would reject it. You replied to none, and only
dismissed the proposal because it already had come up in the past.

> For those playing along at home, routing around NEW processing isn't going
> to happen; if you're introducing new packages regularly enough that NEW
> processing delays are a concern for you, you should reconsider whether
> whether different package names for different versions of your software
> are actually a good idea, or work with the ftpmaster and release teams
> to ensure that your uploads are done in a way which minimises NEW-related
> delays -- such as not making RC bug fixes dependent on NEW processing.

Yeah, fine, i would like that you rethink this, but applied to the RMs and the
kernel team, as is the case here. There seems to be a problem in your
argumentation if it is Steve Langasek doing the complaining to the kernel
team, and then you ask the kernel team to speak more with the Release
Managers, but maybe my poor understanding of english made me miss something in
your explanation.

Now, the remaining question that has me baffled is how you reconcile the
factof waiting for NEW, with the 'vitality' part of your DPL plateform.

Friendly,

Sven Luther