Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-23 Thread Philipp Kern
On 2009-07-23, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote: >> On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote: >> > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past >> > by >> > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors? >>

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by > > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors? > Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-20 Thread Jon Dowland
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:15:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of “made > change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only readon why > such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody useless, that > kind of ch

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > While I can understand your frustration, your argument looks flawed to > me. The measure of refusing _automatically_ uploads being affected by > (certain) lintian errors can not be classified as "a new duty", > precisely be

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ben Finney wrote: > There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of > “made change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only > readon why such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody > useless, that kind of changelog message stro

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Ben Finney
Julien BLACHE writes: > We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than > fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No doubt about > that. This might be a symptom of the wider problem, that people see Lintian not as a series of warning lights indicating probabl

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Stefano Zacchiroli
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:08:50AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > And today, the NEW queue managed by four persons dedicating 5-10 > hours per week to the Debian archive contains 265 packages, some of > them waiting for one month or more. I disagree with their decision > to self-appoint themselves

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Julien BLACHE
Charles Plessy wrote: Hi, > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors? We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Paul Wise
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Philipp Kern wrote: > Damaged the project... no.  Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes. > I recently encountered a package where the library's binary package > was not named after the SONAME.  This caused a lintian error which was... > overridden.  And it broke

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-19 Thread Philipp Kern
On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote: > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors? Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes. I recently encountered a package where the library

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-18 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:55:30AM +0200, Julien BLACHE a écrit : > > Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken > package? Sure you can, yet you never did. Why? Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by willingfully upload packages

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-18 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11815 March 1977, Julien BLACHE wrote: >> Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of > And what do you do with unjustified overrides? > Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken > package? The way we currently think about it there

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-18 Thread Julien BLACHE
Charles Plessy wrote: Hi, > Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of And what do you do with unjustified overrides? Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken package? JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -

Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.

2009-07-17 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Luk Claes a écrit : > > AFAIK the FTP Team is working on a system to prevent uploads which have > lintian errors. The whole category of lintian errors has already been > assessed and possible overrides are planned to arrive in the NEW queue > at least