Steve Langasek <steve.langa...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 02:08:04AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> 1. While there are sponsors that prefer branches over >debdiffs/source >> packages uploaded somewhere, I don't know of any that will only >sponsor >> branches. The reverse is not true. There are developers that don't >do >> UDD sponsoring. By pursuing this path, new packagers limit the >potential >> candidates to sponsor packages. > >If there is a consensus that new packagers should be using UDD, we >shouldn't >let that consensus be held hostage by dissenters that refuse to use >UDD. > >But as per my previous message, I agree that UDD reliability here is a >major >problem, and no one is well served by developer documentation >describing a >non-existent utopia instead of the way things actually are.
I don't think such a consensus, outside of the small group of people that invested time in the packaging guide, exists. The Kubuntu team does not use it and last I checked Ubuntu Desktop didn't either. There are people the use UDD, of course, but also large numbers that don't. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
