Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 12:29:31 +0100
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Updated proposal for improving the FTP NEW process
On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 11:40:52PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 05:54:55PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > With my one of most active sponsors hat on: the current policy is that a
> > version that has never hit the archive must not have a separate changelog
> > entry, unless there are non-negligible users (such as a derivative, upstream
> > repository or at least the package being deployed to multiple users at a
> > workplace). A past history is more acceptable than repeated attempts for an
> > upload.
> > This is what I was taught, and what I not only recommend but also require of
> > sponsorees. There seems to be a concensus on -mentors that this is the
> > right way.
I always understand that what Adam states here is some consensus and I
follow the same policy to not have any gaps in version history (for
exactly the reasons Adam has given).
> with my sponsoring hat on, I will be unhappy if someone reuses version
> numbers and I will ask to never do this again. I very much agree with
> Ian's position that this is bad.
> As a sponsor, I'm a non-negligible user and I want to sensible be able
> to not having to again review stuff I already have reviewed.
> If you have put it on mentors.d.n, it's out in the public.
Disclaimer: I do not sponsor from mentors.d.n but I require my sponsees
to use an apropriate team Vcs and the tag will be only set if the
package has hit unstable. I also set tags for my own packages only
after beeing accepted in unstable.
I'm afraid there is no right or wrong in this question.