Re: On the (ab)use of the Urgency field
On Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 13:16:33 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 19/06/2012 13:08, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >I realise everyone's waiting for news of the freeze (we're working on
> >it...) but please bear in mind that this is not an appropriate use of
> >the Urgency field:
> >* Urgency high to beat the freeze.
> >As mentioned in the last mail we sent to d-d-a (and several at various
> >points before that) if you have serious concerns that important updates
> >to your package won't be included in the release, the correct approach
> >is to talk to us, not try and work around us. The net effect of the
> >above is more likely to be that the urgency will be overriden on the
> >britney side as if the package had been uploaded with a lower urgency.
> How would this work? Will you modify the script to look for such cases?
britney can set a flag called "age-days X", which means that the page
needs to be at least X days old in unstable before it may migrate into
testing (with a bit of more magic...). At least it was like this when i
was in the release team.
Martin Zobel-Helas <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Debian System Administrator
Debian & GNU/Linux Developer | Debian Listmaster
GPG key http://go.debian.net/B11B627B |
GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B