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

Re: Bug #566650: Please unblock dtc 0.32.2-1

Hi Neil!

First, I have listen to you in the "this week in Debian" podcast. It was
fun. I wish I was living in Cambridge with 9 other DDs, I feel alone
here in Shanghai (lucky, Li Daobing lives here now)! :)

Neil McGovern wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Firstly, please accept my apologies for the lack of reply to your mail.
> As you can probably appreciate, there's a lot of work that the release
> team have to do. However, that doesn't mean you shoudn't have a mail
> back, so sorry.

No worries, I do understand that the release team job is huge. :)

What I understand less, is to not get answer *AND* get an unblock
refusal *AND* a refusal to backport fixes though.

> I believe that the previous discussions on this led to the conclusion
> that there is simply no way that the changes proposed could be reviewed.

Was there actually a technical discussion? It's been now 3 months I'm
asking for one! Let me try again this time, and see how it goes...

I asked for authorization to have needed changes, particularly for
removing some PHP_SELF clean-ups (keep in mind this is just an example),
and in debian/control. I haven't started the backporting work because I
am waiting for approval from the release team first.

My plan is to apply things like this:


and few other improvements (that I will have to review one by one in our
Git). Some aren't RC per say, but I still don't feel comfortable leaving
them in Squeeze (I didn't study the consequences of many fixes since I
really didn't think this would be the outcome, and I think it would be a
waste of time, when these fixes are known to be good improvements).
There's at least one urgent critical issue (that I can't write here yet).

Also, I need to change things in debian/control, because of changes
between Lenny and Squeeze. Would that be accepted? It doesn't appear in
the list above... Yet, for example, our support for NSSMySQL needs
different packages (I would need to review each difference between the
current Squeeze version and our Stable 0.32 that aimed at Squeeze). I am
mentioning it, because I know it could be difficult to accept.

Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Now, if you can
> show us what fixes you intend to backport, please go ahead.

I'm here trying to understand what I'll be able to do or not, I don't
really want to work for nothing. I guess nobody does, right?

Neil McGovern wrote:
> So in a way, yes. The size of the changeset is the reason it's being
> rejected. Please bear in mind the amount of emails we're getting to
> review diffs.

Sure, but please understand. I never expected the RT to read the diff of
1 year of developments. I first thought I would have enough time to have
0.32 ready before the freeze, then before the "tight freeze" (I was 10
days late on that one). Now, because 0.30 wasn't aimed at Squeeze, we
have a big issue. I wish to backport clean-ups and fixes, I am told that
I can't, and that I can only make changes that you just mention below.
Yet more are needed.

If it continues like this, IMHO, this package is Squeeze is going right
into a wall, and I wouldn't understand what the RT would be trying to
achieve! Shouldn't I try to make the best release possible, free of issues?

> Ok, we're willing to accept changes that include the following only:
>   - fixes for release critical bugs (i.e., bugs of severity critical,
>   	grave and serious)
>   - changes for release goals, if they are not invasive;
>   - translation updates
>   - documentation fixes

If I don't get fixes in, I can forecast some email with questions like
"why is the Squeeze version not working well?". As I would really feel
bad to have to say "yes, that's because of the release process in
Debian", to this kind of email, and that I think this is avoidable, then
there's 2 choices:

- ask ftp masters for a removal of DTC in Squeeze, then I'll use
backports.d.o (all my messages to this thread are to avoid this which
would really make me sad for all the time of Squeeze until Wheezy...).
If you guys stick to the above list, that's the only solution.

- allow a bit more than the above list, because version 0.30.x was never
the target for Squeeze.

Hoping that I will get a bit of understanding here,


Reply to: