|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2006 > NMUs for Python Policy -- please hold them a little
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NMUs for Python Policy -- please hold them a little
|
|
| Loïc Minier 2006-06-23, 1:22 pm |
| Hi,
It's nice that people spend extra time in taking care of the packages
of others, for example when they upload a NMU to fix serious or
important issues, however this is not always desired or required
immediately.
I suppose some people think the green flag has been waved for NMUing
Python packages for the new Python Policy, but -- without any judgment
whether this is the case or not -- I'd like to ask: please let the
maintainers a little more time, for example a week starting today.
Probably the biggest reason why I feel this extra time would be useful
is because the new Python Policy and the tools supporting it saw
non-negligible changes in the last days. All of this only settled very
recently. This explains why maintainers have been reluctant in moving
packages to the new policy immediately.
(This is not a call against properly done NMUs in general, but a
specific call to postpone NMUs concerning the Python Policy by a few
days because the situation just stabilized.)
Bye,
PS: DELAYED is fine, even if that might mean that the work might be made
twice, once by the NMUer, and once by the maintainer.
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Pierre Habouzit 2006-06-23, 1:22 pm |
| | |
| Mike Hommey 2006-06-23, 1:22 pm |
| On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:33:50PM +0200, Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's nice that people spend extra time in taking care of the packages
> of others, for example when they upload a NMU to fix serious or
> important issues, however this is not always desired or required
> immediately.
> I suppose some people think the green flag has been waved for NMUing
> Python packages for the new Python Policy, but -- without any judgment
> whether this is the case or not -- I'd like to ask: please let the
> maintainers a little more time, for example a week starting today.
>
> Probably the biggest reason why I feel this extra time would be useful
> is because the new Python Policy and the tools supporting it saw
> non-negligible changes in the last days. All of this only settled very
> recently. This explains why maintainers have been reluctant in moving
> packages to the new policy immediately.
>
> (This is not a call against properly done NMUs in general, but a
> specific call to postpone NMUs concerning the Python Policy by a few
> days because the situation just stabilized.)
Is it actually stabilized ?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-06-23, 1:22 pm |
| On Fri, Jun 23, 2006, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> delayed upload means that the NMUer sent his patch to the bug report,
> and then the maintainer can start from that to do his work. so it's
> basically *not* doing the work twice 
delayed upload means the NMUer lost the time to prepare the NMU even if
the maintainer was already working on it, or if the work is already in
his version control and he is working on something else. so it can
basically be doing the work twice
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Raphael Hertzog 2006-06-23, 1:23 pm |
| On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:33:50PM +0200, Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> wrote:
>
> Is it actually stabilized ?
Yes:
http://www.ouaza.com/wordpress/2006...n-can-continue/
I wonder if I should make a second announce on -devel-announce just to
make it clear to everybody.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Mike Hommey 2006-06-23, 1:23 pm |
| On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 06:43:57PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
> Yes:
> http://www.ouaza.com/wordpress/2006...n-can-continue/
>
> I wonder if I should make a second announce on -devel-announce just to
> make it clear to everybody.
I think it'd be better. With a statement about NMUs, it would be even
better.
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
|
|
| Roland Mas 2006-06-24, 7:30 am |
| Loïc Minier, 2006-06-23 16:40:06 +0200 :
[...]
> Probably the biggest reason why I feel this extra time would be
> useful is because the new Python Policy and the tools supporting it
> saw non-negligible changes in the last days. All of this only
> settled very recently. This explains why maintainers have been
> reluctant in moving packages to the new policy immediately.
And here I was, thinking a policy was a collection of tried and true
best practices turned into official status after they've been in use
by most concerned packages for some time. I guess I'm hopelessly out
of touch with reality.
Roland.
--
Roland Mas
Just because you're dead doesn't mean they aren't still out to get you.
-- Virgil, in Ye Gods! (Tom Holt)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Loïc Minier 2006-06-24, 7:30 am |
| On Sat, Jun 24, 2006, Roland Mas wrote:
> And here I was, thinking a policy was a collection of tried and true
> best practices turned into official status after they've been in use
> by most concerned packages for some time.
IIUC, the benefit of the new policy is to ease switching to new Python
versions. The more packages following the new policy, the easiest are
Python transitions.
Since Python 2.4 is a release goal, it is desirable to have the most
packages Python 2.4 aware, and it is automatically the case of packages
converted to the new policy.
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Frank Küster 2006-06-26, 7:36 am |
| Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> wrote:
> Lo=EFc Minier, 2006-06-23 16:40:06 +0200 :
>
> [...]
>
>
> And here I was, thinking a policy was a collection of tried and true
> best practices turned into official status after they've been in use
> by most concerned packages for some time.=20=20
I think this is what should be expected most of the time. However, you
can't always achieve that: In this case, a change was to be made that
required updating application packages, "basic packages" of some area
(like the python* packages here) and helper packages (debhelper) at the
same time. This could /maybe/ be tested in experimental or some local
testbed. On the other hand, it also required to cater for different
packaging styles, maintainer flavors etc., and this cannot be tested.
Similarly, when we established the TeX sub-Policy, we also started to
write up what we already had agreed upon. Some things resulted in basic
TeX and add-on packages being in violation of must-clauses from the
start, just because the conforming basic TeX packages were only in
experimental, and hardly any add-on maintainer new about it. Of course
it took some time until things settled.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Z=
=FCrich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
|
|
|
|
|