Re: Haskell, Was: scheduling
Hi,
On Mon, June 14, 2010 22:19, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Montag, den 14.06.2010, 19:14 +0100 schrieb Adam D. Barratt:
>> It may be possible to include smaller updates if time allows and they do
>> not interfere with ongoing transitions. If your upload would require
>> changes to or rebuilds of other packages, or cause other packages to be
>> unable to transition to testing, please consider whether doing so would
>> help improve the quality of Squeeze. If you believe it would, please
>> contact us to discuss the issue before uploading.
>
> almost every Haskell library upload triggers new rebuilds.
>
> Should we stop uploading such packages from now on, and talk to you if
> it is really important?
>
> Or should we just continue as before, uploading and binNMUing as
> required? I donâ??t expect any interference with other
> packages/transitions.
In this case I'd use a slightly wider definition of "other packages"
meaning "packages outside the closed set maintained by the Haskell team"
and assume that you'd continue applying common sense in terms of what
updates are reasonable /within/ that set of packages.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: