Re: Chosing release goals for slink
James Troup <james@nocrew.org> writes:
> I think your ad hominems are unjustified and unnecessary, Martin.
Hehe, maybe give credit to manoj for this line. :)
> > You say we now have people helping Guy, who are they?
>
> Richard Braakman and myself.
Fine, well now that Incoming is clear, how about some of the bugs
against ftp.debian.org? If you are installing packages, you can surely
delete them too. See bugs you filed as recently as a week ago: #24255,
#24016, #21978, #24355. Or if you feel Guy is the one who should close
them, since he is listed as the maintainer, then fix them, and retitle
and downgrade them. (btw severity "important-ish" means severity normal
to the BTS - see #24255)
It's interesting to note that all but one bug closed against ftp.debian.org
in the last 28 days was done by Brian. (not all bugs are hamm related)
> > I hope you can get net access soon to keep helping him,
>
> ``get net access''? How do you think I'm sending this mail? Magic?
You yourself admitted you'd soon be without an account, unless that has
changed suddenly.
> > but in the past you have been reluctant to do anything to the
> > archive for fear of hosing it.
>
> No, in the past, I have been reluctant to abuse the privileges I have
> on master (for orthogonal tasks) and bypass Guy to fix some short term
> problem that people on IRC were getting worked up about. There is a
> sizeable difference.
I understand, and hope to see rapid progress in future.
You never did oppose my suggestion of being able to remove packages via
a GPG signed email on technical grounds - it was a FUD type
comment you made before. Note that I suggest that maintainers may remove
only their own packages, and I also add that I think these packages should
go into a special section (project/removed perhaps) for 28 days before
actually being deleted.
> > It means even more automation than your debbuild script..
>
> Please don't drag my tools into this, I never mentioned them.
It's not a criticism of your tools, just a statement that I don't think
the automation goes far enough yet.
> > such as a server automatically getting packages from a quinn diff
> > check, compiling them, and sending the results, if bad, straight to
> > the maintainer, ccing to an arch specific person.
>
> We already have such a system, minus the automation of building choice
> (because there are multiple builders with different machines with
> varying levels of connectivity), and minus the automatic mail to the
> maintainer (I think that unsolicited maintainer spamming is a total
> non-plan[1]).
>
> [1] If the bug is in the package, the person who started the build can
> determine that and file a bug; spamming maintainer with mail because
> their package failed to build because a machine didn't have libfoo-dev
> installed is silly.
I don't advocate the automatic mail to the maintainer unless package building
fails. In cases where the build system is incomplete (such as a new arch)
with not all -dev packages available, it would be better to forward the
build logs to the build system maintainer first, so that they may examine
them first. As to connectivity, there was discussion about better
connectivity for some other archs in another forum recently.
I'm not suggesting that these should solutions should be implemented now,
but I think they should be evaluated soon after hamm's release.
Martin.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: