On 27/03/20 at 08:18 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri 27 Mar 2020 at 09:39AM +01, Ulrike Uhlig wrote: > > > My point was to ask if there are any points in this list that could be > > harmful in the scenario proposed by Lucas. > > We try to stop packages of sufficiently low quality entering the archive > at all, so that other contributors don't have to deal with understanding > what's going on with those low quality packages when trying to fix other > stuff. > > I would say that Lucas' proposal would not be able to achieve that. That's true, however, I think that the question is whether we value this filter so much that we agree that it's OK to cause a delay of weeks or months for good-quality packages to enter unstable. My personal opinion is that I would rather have no delay or a much smaller delay before the package gets accepted in 'unstable', and then deal with quality issues the way we deal with them for other packages, by detecting them using QA checks, and by filing (RC) bugs appropriately. It's true that low-quality packages in unstable are annoying when doing QA work, but on the other hand, it's quite easy to ignore them by looking only at packages that are also in testing (that's what I do for archive rebuilds, where I ignore packages in unstable when I don't have much time; and I think I stole that idea from someone else, so others have been doing it too). We already have 365 packages in unstable whose last appearance in testing was before the buster release, and among those, 81 which were last in testing before the stretch release. So this problem of low-quality packages in unstable-only needs to be dealt with anyway. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature