Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with the w-b maintainers. The queue order is only interesting in > the case where there is a backlog; in other cases, packages are usually > built rather fast. In the case where there is a backlog, those trying to > fix the architecture (usually those that are working on it) should be in > charge of deciding what package gets built first, not the maintainer of > a random package -- /all/ package builds are urgent if there's a > backlog.
First, there is no queue. It's a list, but not a queue. I agree that we need policy here, but a serious problem is that currently when there is a backlog, maintainers of penalized packages have a perverse incentive not to fix any bugs in any *other* package because it will cause the penalty on their package to continue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
