Bug#678624: pu: package xz-utils/5.0.0-3
On Sun, 2013-07-07 at 11:14 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > Please go ahead with the upload.
>
> Now that I look back over it, I would like to drop some changes ---
> the upload was originally intended for stable, and parts of the upload
> are less important for oldstable:
[...]
> Would that be ok?
That sounds fine, thanks.
> [...]
> > Updates to oldstable and larger updates both tend to suffer due to
> > taking longer to deal with (in the latter case) and generally being less
> > urgent (in the former, due to the gap between point releases). I'm not
> > sure that throwing more people at the problem will necessarily solve
> > either of those in a useful way in the long term.
>
> Sure, I agree that taking on new helpers takes time and blindly
> throwing people at a problem is rarely helpful. And probably, getting
> the stable update process to scale better would involve changing the
> process a little (e.g., clearer guidelines for how long a response
> should take so following up is easier; uploading changes that have not
> been fully vetted to an archive area where people can help by testing;
> etc). But the current process is only barely working, no?
I don't think it's an entirely fair characterisation overall, although
"I would say that"; I also don't think that a bug report regarding a
particular package is the best forum for continuing discussion of the
issues. I do thank you for raising them and agree that there are things
we need to address.
I've been meaning to try and get various bits of documentation regarding
the process updated and clarified for some time; maybe I should bite the
bullet on that and see where it gets us.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: