Hi Sebastiaan, On 01-10-2019 21:15, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 10/1/19 8:15 PM, Paul Gevers wrote: >> Please stop. We don't need the python2 removal that urgent that we need >> to break stuff. And yes, breaking piuparts is a NOGO in my opinion. > > piuparts is unrelated to python-gdal, and hence not relevant to the gdal > transition. Indeed, my response was not specific about python-gdal, but more in general. As a release team member this fanatic python2 removal has annoyed me quite a bit because our tooling isn't preventing the breakage in testing as it should. Those python2 removal packages should be blocked in unstable until their are ready to migrate. And then again, it helps to not run havoc in unstable either. > Important packages like piuparts deserve more consideration in changes > like the py2removal, but they are not sacred either. Its maintainer is > responsible for not holding back progress. If the maintainer is unable, > progress should not be blocked by it. Not blocked, but slowed down, in my opinion yes. Removal of Python 2 isn't that important to do in a rush. > Sorry, I don't have the patience to wait for that. As I've stated, the > packages in question don't warrant that consideration in my opinion. Ack. But your not the one setting the rules. You have to work together with your peer DD's. > I think you're all making a much bigger fuss about this than you should. I think you are rushing python 2 removal more than it warrants. >> Fix >> reverse dependencies *before* dropping python2 packages. Work with >> maintainers. Don't just drop python2 support while you know there are >> reverse dependencies of it in testing. Don't bully them into doing >> things *now*. Please. > > Again sorry, I also don't have the energy to spend on packages like > these. I already spend it on the GIS packages. I don't have any to spare > for non-important packages like these. That's the responsibility of > their respective maintainers. RC bugs have proven to be good motivators > to get maintainers to act, I don't think you should consider that bullying. Using RC severity on bugs to *get people motivated* is bullying in my opinion. Those bugs shouldn't be RC to begin with. Important bugs, yes, bugs that require fixing, yes, RC, no. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature