Bug#696254: qa.debian.org: PTS has outdated current policy version
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:05:02PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 08:00:37PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 02:59:14PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 06:37:12AM +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> > > > I suggest to implement the following instead :
> > >
> > > I understand your proposal, but it feels like overkill to me.
> >
> > It's some work once, but afterwards PTS automatically follows any future
> > debian-policy version changes, so I think it's worth it.
>
> Right, that part of it makes sense, but I don't think there's any need
> to track more than debian-policy in unstable.
I think now that you're right about tracking only debian-policy in unstable.
>
> I'm not volunteering to implement that, though :)
I might volunteer to implement something for this bug when I find the time, but
let's first agree on the desired solution.
>
> > I prefer short messages on the PTS. If we want the PTS to stop suggesting to
> > bump the standards-version during the freeze, then the messages should be
> > hidden during the freeze. Maybe we can do that automatically. Do we have some
> > indicator on quantz that Debian is in freeze ?
>
> I don't think the current advice is different to other PTS notices such
> as new upstream versions and patch incorporation; they would often
> not be appropriate during a freeze.
You're right that PTS currently produces more messages that should be ignored
during freeze.
> A global reminder of the freeze
> and not blindly following the advice of the PTS wouldn't do any harm,
> though.
That wouldn't do harm, but then it shouldn't be limited to standards-version
only. Maybe a separate message on the PTS like "Debian is in freeze, so any
uploads for this package most conform to the freeze policy" linking to
http://release.debian.org/wheezy/freeze_policy.html would be a good addition.
We can discuss such global reminder separately from this bug about
standards-version.
Maybe unwanted standards-version bumps have not been much of an issue so far
since I don't see standards-version mentioned in the freeze policy.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:17:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> writes:
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 02:59:14PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
>
> >> Russ, in his 3.9.4 announcement, reminded us not to gratuitously update
> >> the S-V of a package during the freeze (and he did mention 3.9.4 there)
>
> > I think he meant that doing uploads and requesting unblocks just to bump
> > the standards-version is not so useful.
>
> The release team have, in the past, asked people not to make changes like
> bumping the standards version in changes that need to be reviewed, since
> it adds noise to the diff and makes their job harder. So it's more than
> just not uploading solely for standards version changes, but also that one
> shouldn't change it in uploads targetted for stable.
>
> > I agree about "a gratuitous bump". About "a bump" however, I think that
> > fixing RC bugs combined with bumping the standards-version without
> > further changes is not wrong.
>
> I'm happy to go with this policy if the release team is okay with it. My
> understanding is that they'd rather people not do this, which is where my
> hesitation comes from.
Not bumping standards-version at all during freeze corresponds to what I do
with uploads during the freeze, since I don't remember ever having bumped the
standards-version during freeze.
OK, with the feedback I've read so far, I think now that only debian-policy in
unstable should be tracked, doing that automatically would be nice, and it's
not wrong to allow PTS to continue to show messages that should be ignored
during freeze. If we would want different or less messages on PTS during
freeze, then this goes wider than just the messages about standards-version.
Is this a good summary of what we discussed so far ?
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: