Hi Sergei, Thanks for your quick reply.
On 8/22/21 6:14 PM, Sergei Golovan wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:55 PM Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Damir, Sergei, the release team, >> >> First of all, thanks for your bug report, Damir. >> >> Debian Bullseye was released on the 14th of Aug. Then Erlang v24 was >> uploaded on the 17th. Looking at: >> >> https://release.debian.org/transitions/ >> >> I cannot see any transition thingy opened for Erlang. This means that >> Erlang was carelessly uploaded to Unstable: > > Uploading new major version of Erlang does not require a transition. > No application needs to be rebuilt against it, and only a minority > breaks (those which use removed deprecated features, and they have to > be updated or patched anyway). I'm sorry that elixir and rabbit-mq > break. Here, you have 2 packages that seem to be good candidates for an Erlang transition. If you think that's not enough packages, then probably you could at least try to rebuild them and open bugs against the Erlang reverse dependencies if you think that's enough? I would have been more than happy to prepaire an upload of RabbitMQ-server before things actually break. >> 1/ Without informing the release team, and defining a schedule for the >> Erlang transition > > I insist that a transition is not necessary. How do you then intend that this kind of upload doesn't happen again? Also, I don't understand your logic: what makes Erlang so special so that it doesn't deserve the kind of care we have in other places in Debian (ie: transitions)? > I've uploaded Erlang 24 to experimental months ago. If you know that > your software breaks on Erlang upgrade, you could do something > already. Just uploading to Experimental isn't, IMO, a thing that makes it ok to break others unstable. For this, we have transitions... Also, an upload to Experimental during the freeze isn't giving me any sign. Last, I am listed as uploader for quite a bunch of packages [1] (because I maintain OpenStack, which is big...). I know that this is a common answer from package maintainers to say they uploaded to Experimental first. But it doesn't work, as that's not realistic to ask to monitor 1000+ reverse dependencies for uploads in Experimental. What I do expect, however, is having someone to file a bug against my package, (with severity important), because that person rebuilt my package and knows it FTBFS. And that's in fact, how transitions are supposed to be working... Instead, here, we received a bug report for a rabbitmq-server *user* that discovered, after the fact, that things broke. I'm sure we can do better than this! Now, about Elixir, could we get it to become team-maintained, so that we could upload new upstream releases without asking Evgeny Golyshev to do the work? I uploaded 3 times myself, you did so 6 times, and Antonio 4 times (according to debian/changelog), compared to Evgeny 7 times. That's IMO a very good candidate for team maintenance... Your thoughts on this specifically? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=team%2Bopenstack%40tracker.debian.org
