Re: Bug #566650: Please unblock dtc 0.32.2-1
> - 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.
>
We don't need to ask ftp masters here. It's just a matter of adding one
line for Britney. Besides, please note that writing (many)long mails
doesn't raise chances for an unblock.
> - allow a bit more than the above list, because version 0.30.x was
> never the target for Squeeze.
>
Then, it should have been stopped from migrating or at least advertized as
non-releasable in a bug report.
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 04:00:33AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> 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.
>
Hrm. I seem to have message <[🔎] 4CA87E60.7000509@dogguy.org> which
indicates that there was indeed an answer, which was that we coudn't
accept an upload through unstable, and backported fixes should go
through t-p-u
> > 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'm slightly confused by these dates, dtc 0.32.1-1 was uploaded on Sept
11, 2010. Your first mail about dtc dates back to Sept 12, 2010, so I
can't see where the 3 months came from, especially since we've only been
frozen for a couple of months :)
> 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.
>
As above, I think we mentioned that backports should be preferred.
> My plan is to apply things like this:
>
> http://git.gplhost.com/gitweb/?p=dtc.git;a=commitdiff;h=1bbbd49d431b5427324133cea90ae21c89184afd
>
Well, that's looks like it fixes a problem, but it doesn't look RC.
> 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.
>
We cannot accept or refuse without seeing a patch. So, please prepare a
set of patches ready for review and send them. Please bear in mind
though, that we're trying to release real soon now, so only directed
fixes from the previous list should be worked on.
> 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?
>
I'm not asking you to do some work for nothing. I'm asking for patches
because that's what we review. We don't review technical fixes described
in English only, sorry.
> 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.
>
Well, we certainly tell people that it's important that they only upload
things to unstable which they consider releaseable, or file RC bugs to
keep it out of testing.
> 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.
>
If you wish to pursue this route, you don't need to contact FTPMasters,
we will do that for you.
> - allow a bit more than the above list, because version 0.30.x was never
> the target for Squeeze.
>
Well, I'm afraid we've been frozen for quite some time now. I'd suggest
targetted fixes as described.
Thanks,
Neil
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E
Reply to: