On Sunday 04 March 2007 22:43, Bill Allombert wrote: > Questions raised in the discussion period that are relevant to the GR. This summary is all very nice, but IMHO does not reflect what this GR is about. The background is that a number of developers saw a problem (an architecture lagging somewhat behind) and found a creative solution to work around that. This solution involved doing a big number of binary uploads, thereby circumventing the official buildd network that is the basis for the quality of our archive. The FTP-masters did not like that and decided to block these irregular uploads. Unfortunately the FTP-masters could not not block uploads only from the DDs doing the mass uploads, but instead had to block all excluding a few. This had an unfortunate effect on e.g. experimental builds. Note that the binary uploads were not strictly necessary: the issues behind arm and alpha falling behind were being dealt with. As we all know that could have been communicated better, but the issues in question have not caused any real problems, nor caused a delay in the release of Etch. I do not think there is any basis to assume that the FTP-masters are trying to block binary NMUs by porters in general, but I do know that they do very much prefer that porter NMUs are only used if there is a very good reason. What this GR is about that the DDs who originally started this creative solution, together with a group who have long been discontent with the FTP-masters are now trying to prevent the FTP-masters from doing their job: guarding the quality of the archive. I do agree with a lot of people that some changes in the way FTP-masters (and DSA) work are needed, but I don't feel a GR like this is needed to force that. I have a lot of respect for the amount of work that the FTP-masters do and the general quality of that work. What I would be very much in favor of is the addition of one or two new members who start out as junior members with limited responsibilities (not necessarily technically enforced), who are mentored by current FTP-masters and who are allowed to gain their trust and thus gain more responsibilities. As I personally feel that this GR is a misplaced attempt from the disgruntled DDs to get their way, I have voted for "further discussion". Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
pgpnWfEvMVbFN.pgp
Description: PGP signature