On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 08:16:42AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > (Cc += dsa@d.o) > > On 20/02/14 at 00:14 +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 06:56:26 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > On 19/02/14 at 09:42 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ralf, QA folks, does that seem reasonable? > > > > > > > > Seems reasonable to me. > > > > > > OTOH, we are not quite good at maintaining stuff under qa.d.o. Maybe it > > > would be better to setup a separate edos.d.o service? > > > > > I don't really see what difference that would make to be honest. Care > > to elaborate? > > If you ask DSA, I'm quite sure that they will tell that services under > qa.debian.org are difficult to deal with, because there are numerous > different people knowing about different sub-services, and almost no > coordination between them. > > Attempts to upgrade quantz, for example, usually ends up with DSA > deciding "ok, since nobody answered, let's just do it, and we will see > what happens." Having service owners be responsive is always helpful. When they're not, we get stuck. Eventually, we do have to proceed. Doesn't just happen with *.qa.debian.org. > So, it might be better to have a separate service, with a known > maintainer. > > Now, that's my perception. If DSA is fine with adding another service > under qa.d.o, I personally don't have anything against it. Tell us more about what edos will do, what it needs (ram, disk, archive access, etc.). Thanks, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature