Hi,
My idea was like
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 01:55:16PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>
> The automatic testing removals put much pressure on our understaffed team
> to fix the issues to prevent the removal. So I'm not a fan of the fake-RC
> bugs idea.
gdal-1.10 in testing (with no RC bugs)
gdal-1.11 in unstable with bug "do not move to testing" severity serious
I can not see why in this case gdal-1.10 should be removed from testing.
If gdal-1.11 would move to testing and this would break some build -
> I'm not sure what the benefit would be to prevent packages from migrating
> from unstable to testing.
than we would receive some autoremoval bug. My plan was to prevent
this.
To make sure no "does not build from source" bugs we are not under
> Uploading with urgency=low would increase the
> time from 5 to 10 days. When packages enter testing, the user exposure
> increases significantly, resulting in valuable feedback. Why would we want
> to delay that?
control will occure in testing.
OK. I was just wondering whether there might be other show stoppers.
> > (even
> > if I'm wondering how long your DM-process is lasting ...)
>
> The progress on my NM process is slow because I'm procrastinating on the
> bad-licenses vs DFSG task. That's mostly due to my not ideal balancing of
> available time and things to do for Debian, I'm currently prioritizing
> packing work over other tasks.
Nice.
> The first two weeks of August I'll have significantly more time to
> dedicate to that and other tasks.
Thanks for all your work
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Archive: [🔎] 20140715123611.GC30491@an3as.eu" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20140715123611.GC30491@an3as.eu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gis-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org