On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 04:28:07 +0200 Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 09:58:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > > [...] > > Well, if we take into account the dynamics of normal transitions the > remaining long tail usually takes a very long time to get done w/o > active incentives. >
Indeed. My estimate was based on the rate being sustained, which gets increasingly more and more unlikely as there are fewer packages left. For the record, we are now 2½ after the last mail (from me) and "only" down to 1694 packages remaining. In the past year, it has dropped by about ~500 without any nagging. > [...] > > > [...] > > > > So, the question is now - do we want to scale up the enforcement level, > > and, if so, to what? As mentioned earlier, I am willing to increase the > > severity of the tag (provided it does not become an auto-reject overnight). > > I think if we'd want to get this done relatively soon, then it needs > "active herding". Increasing the lintian tag to a non auto-reject error, > mails to debian-devel (or d-d-a) and possibly blog posts encouraging > people to switch packages, someone to possibly handle it as a release > goal to give it visibility, etc. > No one ever confirmed that "E" tags are more likely to be fixed than "W" tags. That said, nagging people on d-d(-a) or via blog posts might help. Alternatively, if the FTP masters agree we could make it an auto-reject tag. > After a while, and depending on the amount still remaining, probably > switching to more aggressive methods, like I described above would > help with the remaining straddlers. > > Thanks, > Guillem Indeed. Thanks, ~Niels
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
