Hi, On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:52:48PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > Holger Levsen writes ("Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED"): > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 03:19:33PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Why is any of this a reason for an ftpmaster REJECT ? I still think > > > all of this should be handled as bugs (possibly RC bugs) in the BTS > > > in the conventional way, after ACCEPT. > > > > because why accept rc-buggy software in the archive (when we know it's > > rc-buggy), whether at NEW time or with any following upload? > > Because: > > * Discussions about the RC bugs can be more effectively dealt with > using our existing discussion mechanisms, including primarily the > Debian BTS. Compared to REJECT mails: > - Discussions in the BTS are more transparent > - Discussions in the BTS are better organised > - Discussions in the BTS can have wider participation > - Discussions in the BTS are better archived > - Discussions in the BTS have better metadata > > * Publishing a work-in-progress in the Debian archive enables more > people to more easily help improve and fix it.
The experimental distribution is a good place for work in progress. Maybe the rules for automatic rejects can be relaxed for experimental so a package can go into the archive (and have e.g. the BTS used for that version) if the maintainer doesn't want to fix the reject right away. Cheers, -- Guido > > * Once a package is accepted metadata about it, and parts of it, are > automatically published by a variety of Debian services, making it > much easier to work with - for example, one can see who the > maintainer is and what its issues are. > > * ftpmasters are already far too overloaded looking for problems like > unredistributability, dfsg-nonfreeness, malformed packages, > breakages of the archive, etc. > > * It is not ftpmasters' role to determine whether a package is > RC-buggy; that task is for the Release Team. > > > (in that sense I would appreciate packages getting automatically tested > > (and rejected if needed) before they enter *unstable*, and then again, > > with stricter automatic tests before they enter testing.) > > I agree that automatic checking is fine, but humans should be able to > override it. I have no problem with auto-REJECTs, which are generally > either for really serious problems, or can be overridden. > > Ian. > > -- > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. > > If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is > a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter. >