Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 00:10 -0800, schreef Steve Langasek:
> Well, my objection is basically the same as Thomas's here -- all package
> builds are *not* equally urgent,
Of course not, that is exactly my point.
But from the POV of a package's maintainer, all fixes are more or less
urgent. If some fixes weren't necessary, the upload wouldn't have been
there in the first place.
> and in fact, we have an "urgency" field
> in uploads that expresses this fact quite clearly. Certainly there's
> some danger of abuse by uploaders, but there are dozens of other things
> that maintainers *could* abuse right now and are only stopped from doing
> because they *shouldn't* do them.
>
> I wouldn't be bothered by porters choosing how to order builds, if the
> ordering they chose more closely corresponded to what the release team
> (and britney) want it to be. :)
I from my side wouldn't mind if someone from the release team would ask
me to prioritize a build[1] if necessary; but I feel irky at the thought
of allowing other people to prioritize their packages' builds over
others, because that *will* make sure that eventually, those people that
do what is actually the right thing will have to wait for all eternity
for their packages to be built.
[1] this is technically possible, but only in a kindof hackish way, by
manually adding the package to a buildd's REDO file and (also manually)
setting it to 'building' by that host.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
