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

Re: Shouldn't we have more ftp masters ?

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:15:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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

No, I complained about the kernel team's practice of *coupling* critical
fixes with irrelevant changes that require NEW processing, just as I would
complain about any maintainer of a base package making a habit of coupling
critical security fixes with irrelevant changes with the potential to
introduce release-critical regressions and/or delays on testing propagation.
Remember that one of Joey's initial complaints was that the kernel team
hasn't left any time between uploads to make propagation to testing
possible.  This, and Bastian's reply that the kernel team does not intend to
let concerns about testing propagation delay kernel work (apparently
regardless of importance) shows that the kernel team effectively gives a
very low priority to the needs of users of testing.  I do have a *big*
problem with that, because it should easily be doable to create a short
branch in svn used only for RC bugfixes for long enough to get a fixed
kernel into testing; instead, this policy puts the much greater burden on
any developers who *do* care about testing's users to figure out how to get
these security fixes into testing without the benefit of the preferred path
(i.e., via unstable).

And no, I don't want to be using my position as release manager to ask the
ftp team for out-of-order processing of completely release-irrelevant new
packages.  I resent being put in that position by maintainers who choose
to tie release-critical fixes to release-irrelevant changes.  I have better
things to do with my time than being used as a pawn in your squabble with
the ftp team over NEW processing.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: