Web lists-archives.com

Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports




On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote:

> > >If there are other issues to solve than the lifespan of the package
> > >version, they must be solved in another way.
> > 
> > I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power
> > (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to go
> > with plan B, which is less than ideal, but can move things forward.
> 
> Plan B in this case are PPAs. If you want to engage in that idea, please
> do separately from the -volatile idea.
> 
> > >> As I said, gitlab was not about manpower. This new repo is completly
> > >against
> > >> our vision of what backports is. Therefore we don't want it within
> > >the
> > >> backports suite. 
> > >
> 
> > If people argue both ways, how can we answer? Either it adds more work
> > for -backports team or it does not. Some people say its not fair to
> > add more load while ftp masters say its not about load.
> 
> As Alex laid out, it's mostly just the -backports team handling the NEW
> queue. So all of this really is independent from -backports, if another
> NEW queue is added (which I do not think is the best idea, but still
> possible).
> 
> But, I do not think it is possible to start -volatile completely
> independently. I am pretty certain there is enough man power to handle
> it as a new suite, but on the other hand I am also certain there is not
> enough manpower to operate a compelte set of seperate services for it.
as said, we are also guests on the ftpmaster services. They are the people to
ask. The NEW queue is just a minor detail of a suite. 

Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature