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

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:
> >Hi,
> >
> >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 <zobel@debian.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 

Reply to: