Bug#827933: RFS: yabar/0.4.0-3 [ITP]

[Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de>]

On 07/27/2016 03:28 AM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> 13. Why a 'low' upload urgency?  Counterintuitively, this means that you
> think the package is more likely than usual to be buggy and so it should
> take longer to migrate to testing; it doesn't actually mean "less
> important".  Unless you think the upload is buggy, you should use
> priority=medium.

I disagree: this is a new package (ITP), and I think it is appropriate
to have urgency=low for these, even if you think they are completely
bug-free. Existing packages in unstable are much more likely to be
tested sooner by users (and find bugs that the maintainer didn't find
before uploading), just because that only involves upgrading your
system, which many sid users do regularly. But new packages need to
be explicitly installed by people first, which takes additional time.

Also, I disagree on another level: if you think your upload is buggy,
you shouldn't upload it at all (unless it's less buggy than the
version in the archive), but fix the bugs first. ;-) urgency=low for
existing packages is IMHO a good idea if you have done major changes
to the package and while you believe everything is correct, you'd
like to have a bit more time for people to test and find flaws. Or
if for example upstream has released a new major version and while
you are confident that it won't break anything, you want to be on
the safe side.

IMHO, of course.

Regards,
Christian