Re: freeze exception: fossil 2010.08.05.100943-1

[Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>]

On  0, "Barak A. Pearlmutter" <barak@cs.nuim.ie> wrote:
> [...]
>

Please don't misunderstand Julien's answer. Our goal is not hold down any
action/updates/fixes/$whatever but to make sure that we release a set of
well tested packages.

In our last mail to d-d-a, we asked maintainers to explain why they think
$pkg/$ver should be part of Squeeze and we clearly explained the criterias
that we will consider while reviewing the diff. Your mail failed to explain
that (at least, imho) and it's not reasonable to ask for a review for a 3000 
lines patch during a freeze.

You might argue that an earlier upload would have allowed fossil to get an
automatic freeze exception and it would be fair. But, this is not the case
here since it was almost 5 days later. And even if you have uploaded just after 
the freeze announcement, it would have been just bad luck and it could happen 
even if the freeze was announced since ages.

If you can explain clearly how this update can enhance Squeeze's quality, then 
please do.

Besides:
1) "it has been done before and it didn't hurt the release" is not an argument. 
   We can review our rules/practices and change them if it's a good idea for the
   release.
2) "it's a leaf package, it won't hurt anyting" is not an argument neither. We
   have the same quality expectations for leaf packages and packages with lots
   of reverse dependencies.

Note that sqlite3 wasn't freeze-exception'ed automatically. We have discussed
the decision: 1) We had a transition running and some involved packages caught
the new dependency of sqlite3 2) Some other packages caught the new dependency,
3) There were no ABI breakage. It was then easier to let sqlite3 get in than
revert the upload and rebuild newly built packages.

I really hope that you understand better our position and the decisions we 
make now.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi Dogguy