Bug#768469: closed by Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> (Re: Bug#768469: unblock: gcl/2.6.12-1)
Greetings!
Again, please let me thank you for your work on Debian, and state that I
do understand why in a project of this size adhering to policies and
schedules is important.
Apparently, I've made a mistake, and I humbly apologize. If it would
help, I'd be happy to forward said apology to whomever you'd deem
important. I could have sworn I saw five days on the Debian pages to
which I referred, but obviously I haven't saved these, so the most
plausible explanation is that I'm mistaken. And it is also true that I
should have not exclusively relied on this, but kept up with the mailing
list you quoted.
But I think these facts are also very relevant:
1) gcl-2.6.12-1 is identical to gcl-2.6.11-6 but for the name change.
The latter was uploaded on 10-23, well in advance of the 10 days needed
before 11-5. I erroneously thought there was time for a name change
only upload to migrate and synchronize with the upstream release. My bad,
but the code has in fact had the time requested in unstable.
2) Concomitant with the above, three gcl dependencies, maxima, axiom,
and hol88, were built with a build-dependency against gcl >= 2.6.11-6,
and successfully migrated into testing. They now have rc bugs filed,
because I misjudged the time needed for a name-change only upload.
Unblocking gcl is the minimal targeted change to clear these bugs, thus
falling under point i. of your unblocking policy. If you would prefer,
I could re-upload 2.6.11-6, but it is exactly the same as what is in
unstable now but for the name. In fact, 2.6.12-1 has had more air time
to expose possible issues.
So what do you propose? People are human, and mistakes are made and we
all have a limited amount of time to spend on this volunteer project.
What's best for Debian? May I humbly suggest, unblocking gcl, and
having me do 20 push-ups, is clearly the best way forward :-).
Take care,
Jonathan Wiltshire <jmw@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:32:26AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
>> Greetings! I humbly ask you to reconsider, especially in light of the
>> fact that the package tracking webpages and quality assurance webpages
>> did not post this migration time change, and still reported the 5 days
>> (and in fact still do). This situation is legitimately confusing, and
>> letting packages in within a five day window of 11-5 when uploaded with
>> this understanding will strengthen the release and project.
>
> Excuses output, which is what feeds the PTS, reflected the 10
> days required during that period. It no longer does so, because those
> values have been reset now that migration is fully manual.
>
> I have considered carefully overnight, but I have not changed my mind.
> I'm sorry to disappoint you.
--
Camm Maguire camm@maguirefamily.org
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah
Reply to: