reopen 568141
reassign 568141 www.debian.org
retitle 568141 Syncing of version numbers after point release should be more explicit
Hello Luk,
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 05:42:23PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> On 05/14/2011 05:13 PM, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 12:43:55PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> >> On 05/14/2011 10:44 AM, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> >>> On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:33:21AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>>> This is still about the fact that you're expecting all debian.org
> >>>> resources to be in sync at point release time. I don't think that's
> >>>> reasonable, the release process is complicated enough as it is. Please
> >>>> don't reopen.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not saying it is easy, I'm not saying that this is a "must fix",
> >>> I'm not saying someone is to blame, etc.
> >>>
> >>> But you are saying: "This is a problem (bug) but I don't want to see a
> >>> report about it?" I belived that Debian is not hiding problems. And,
> >>> the bts has a tag called "wontfix" to indicate a problem a fix cannot
> >>> be found.
> >>>
> >>> I hope you can enlighten me why this problem should not be documented
> >>> in the bts.
> >>
> >> There currently are mails to inform people of upcoming point releases
> >> and mails to announce point releases when everything is available on the
> >> mirror network. What is it that you are still missing and what exactly
> >> can be done to get that fixed?
> >
> > It is currently not clear which pages are current and which pages are
> > out of date regarding version numbers after point updates.
> >
> > A fix could be some note on e.g. http://packages.debian.org/ that the
> > version numbers after point releases might be (slightly) out of date
> > and that in case of doubt http://packages.qa.debian.org/ should be
> > used.
>
> This has nothing to do with release.debian.org, but with syncs the
> website and QA teams are responsible of AFAICT.
So it would be sensible to reassign this to www.debian.org?
> > Another fix was proposed in my initial bug report (why is nobody
> > reading this?) already:
> > My suggestion: First update www.debian.org (*with* version numbers)
> > and then push the update out to the mirrors. And secondly unify the
> > versions given in http://packages.debian.org/XXX and
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/XXX (and in the latter also where the
> > latest one is printed).
>
> The website update should only happen once the mirrors are populated
> according to the mirror team which makes perfectly sense to me.
Fine, a note along this could be put on the above mentioned pages as
well.
> > Hope this clarifies.
> >
> > Do you agree to reopen this bug now? (After having explained the initial
> > report again and having proposed two possible solutions)
>
> I'm afraid you'll get nowhere by reopening the bug. The sync scripts for
> packages.debian.org and packages.qa.debian.org are suboptimal in that
> they show out-of-date information also when there is no point release.
> So that might be something to look at by the website and/or QA teams.
Well, identifying a problem is the first step, even if no (immediate)
fix is possible. So that's no reason not to reopen, even if this bug
has to remain open for some time to come.
And again, reassigning to the www.debian.org seems to make perfectly
sense to me now.
> > P.S. And of course, adding version numbers in the NEWS on
> > www.debian.org, e.g. News/2010/20100130.wml, would also solve the
> > immediate problem ...
>
> That might be possible, though would need some better integration of the
> tools (patches are probably welcome) and coordination with the press
> team that they are fine with the changes.
Given that again this happens on the website, I will reopen this bug
now and assign it to www.debian.org for their evaluation.
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@helgefjell.de
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature