Hello, On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 12:19:55AM +0200, Jack Henschel wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately, neither Section 4.4 [1] nor > 5.6.17 [2] explain when which urgency should be used (so I just used > the lowest one). Is there documentation for this elsewhere? > [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-dpkgchangelog > [2] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Urgency On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:37:03AM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > 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. The release team announced a while back that they expect most uploads to be of medium urgency.[1] My interpretation of this is that an upload should be medium urgency unless there is a reason for /that particular upload/ to be low or high urgency. I.e. an ITP shouldn't be low urgency just because it's an ITP. Just my interpretation, though. > 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. I agree. Something known to be buggy shouldn't be uploaded anywhere other than maybe experimental. When I talked about low priority in my previous e-mail, I meant to refer to disruptive and major changes as you describe. Thanks! [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/11/msg00007.html -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature