On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:10:20PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes: > > I see that diffutils_1:3.2-6, which was uploaded with urgency=low, > > will only need 5 days to enter testing, probably because I made > > 1:3.2-4 to be urgency=medium. I don't know when you changed the > > algorithm but I think it is a bad change. > > > > In this case, the reason to modify the urgency was that 1:3.2-4 just > > tried to disable a test which failed, while 1:3.2-6 has real code > > changes which IMHO, deserve the usual 10 days in unstable. > > > > The traditional meaning of "urgency" has always been "the time > > required for *this* upload to supersede the version currently in > > testing" and that's why I used urgency=low in 1:3.2-6. > > > > However, if urgencies accumulate, how are we supposed to really mean > > "10 days" after an upload not of low priority? It's impossible! No. The idea is that if you specify urgency=medium that *this* *change* (not upload!) should go into testing in an expedited fashion. If you then go and upload something else in the meantime that's your problem, as we still want the change in testing. You could a) wait for the previous version to hit testing or b) ask the release team to override the urgency of your most recent upload. The only case where urgencies should not accumulate is if you take a different branch and upload it without the changes in the previous version. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature