Re: libpqxx v4.0 sid upload
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:04 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> On 2012-06-19 12:26:39, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:20:30 +0100, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
> > > I'd like to upload (not personally but by my sponsor [thx Matthijs btw]) new
> > > version of pqxx (postgresql bindings for C++) to unstable. I'm putting urgency
> > > to medium to make it before freeze.
> >
> > Are you kidding? What do you think the point of the urgency field is?
>
> As an answer I'll ask you if those questions are rhetorical? If they are not
> I'll try to answer them.
> To answer your 1st question answer is no. Answer to your 2nd question is 'I
> think so' as DP is not very complicated in this case.
fwiw, the second question was "what do you think the point is", not "do
you know what the point is". In any case, policy says:
This is a description of how important it is to upgrade to this
version from previous ones.
By extension, when applied to testing migration, there's an implicit "in
testing". "I want to beat the freeze" is *not* "it is moderately
important that users upgrade to this version of the package". "The
version in testing has RC bugs that significantly affect its usability"
might be.
(<URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/06/msg00621.html> is
also relevant here.)
It looks like version 4 of libpqxx is a new source package (libpqxx
versus libpqxx3) and doesn't share any binary package names with version
3? In that case were you to upload to unstable then the urgency would
be irrelevant in any case, as britney will automatically set any new
source package (i.e. one with no version in testing) to low urgency.
> > > Maintainers of the packages dependant on libpqxx have been asked to try it as
> > > it has been upload to experimental some time ago.
> > > Therefore I'm hoping everything is ok and that release team has no objections
> > > to above.
> > >
> > No, this is very much not OK. The time for such requests ended at least
> > a month ago.
>
> In this case what are you suggesting me/us to do, as freeze is not there yet?
The relevant point isn't whether the freeze has arrived yet; starting
new transitions right up until the moment of freeze would be beneficial
to no-one. Please see
<URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/05/msg00004.html>, particularly the last section.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: