On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 02:24:30PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 01:05:49PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote: > > Any objections? If you do object, please provide an alternative proposal > > that will mean that users stop getting misled. > > I'd love to see it working the same way it works in Debian. With > random developers uploading (AND TAKING ON THEM THE RESPONSABILITY TO > KEEP IT WORKING AND POSSIBLY UPDATED EVER AFTER), whilst a "team" is > only tasked with basically verifying that the version string is sane and > won't break update. > > > I don't remember teward's proposals from 2 years ago, but I do realize > the current way the backports pockets are handled just makes it not > sustainable.
Yeah, this. Actually Thomas and I talked. I guess it was two years ago. I was probably responsible for discouraging any further people getting involved in the backports process as it is currently operating, because it's not sustainable for the people involved. When we talked we discussed reformulating it along the lines of Debian backports, but in the end neither of us stepped up to write the new policies and get them approved. The best way forward would be if someone had the spoons for that. I'd be happy to help review, but I'm not likely to drive it, sorry. In the absence of any of this happening, I would support notifying folks that the current process is deprecated. Cheers, -- Iain Lane [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ] Debian Developer [ la...@debian.org ] Ubuntu Developer [ la...@ubuntu.com ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
