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

Bug#671066: marked as done (ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not accumulate)

Your message dated Tue, 1 May 2012 22:26:34 +0200
with message-id <20120501202633.GB26572@mraw.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#671066: ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not accumulate
has caused the Debian Bug report #671066,
regarding ftp.debian.org: upload urgencies should not accumulate
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
671066: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671066
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: ftp.debian.org

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!


So please reconsider the way urgencies are handled. The traditional
way worked well enough and the current behaviour is a lot confusing.

Thanks.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> (01/05/2012):
> It's been that way for at least four years; I suspect a good deal
> longer but don't have the evidence immediately available.  The start
> of the release team's britney1 repository, when we took over direct
> running of it rather than ftp-master doing so on our behalf, already
> includes urgencies being "sticky".

Thanks for the confirmation, closing as not a bug accordingly.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: