On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:19:31PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 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. There may or may not be such a consensus. But the consensus is what matters, and the above argument is therefore irrelevant to whether UDD should be the recommended workflow. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
