On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 14:17:27 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Hi again. > > * Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> [2012-07-30 09:05:09 CEST]: > > * Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> [2012-07-12 17:57:46 CEST]: > > > I wasn't very happy back then either. It was sort of rushed through in > > > some private IRC pings about me setting it up on the wanna-build side. > > > All I'm saying is if it would be possible to review the arguments, > > > having had the experience for one cycle. > > > > The arguments why it is wanted (and to some degree needed) didn't > > change since then. There are still the two groups of people who expect > > backports to be upgradeable to the next release _without_ backports, and > > those who still want to have newer versions in _after_ the release. > > Both are valid concerns, and both have their userbase. > > > > > It's sad that we do not currently scale on the buildd side, but that's > > > how it is.[1] > > > > > > (And it's likely to take a month until all buildds have implemented it, > > > given the current speed of any buildd updates needing to take place.) > > > > Is there anything we can help with that? (and, ouch :( ) > > I'd like to re-ask this question, it might went unseen. Is there > anything we can help with? postgres-9.2 was one of the things that was > asked about already, and I suspect that there are people wanting to > provide other stuff too. > There's a lot you can do to help get wheezy out. After which you can put new stuff in backports again. Everybody wins. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature