Re: Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:18:37PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I think the "communication issues" are just a stand in for complaints of
> the underlying cause. If they weren't, I think the new.html page should
>
> I actually think that's a good result: far better to keep track of the
> problematic packages, than to just REJECT them with a reason like
> "doesn't seem like a good idea" and have them randomly reuploaded later.
> It also seems like a better idea to let packages that don't seem like
> a good idea sit in the queue, rather than get uploaded and distributed
> around the world.
Mmm, actually, the new page would probably be a lot more usefull if it had a
bit more of dynamic data in it, or let's say if the package could be separated
in different subqueues, like not yet considered, being worked on, hold to keep
track, and so on ... And maybe the not yet considered queue could contain some
automatically calculated statistic about expected time upto consideration.
Also, i hear rumors that more problematic packages get processed later, or
that some choices of binary package name (like the kernel-latest-powerpc
having a powerpc kernel-headers-2.6 package which may be too generic), may be
a cause of a delay, while the problem is considered. I have no idea if this is
true or not, but in any case, i believe the package maintainer should be in
the loop for decision taking about issues of this kind concerning his
packages.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: