On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 02:06:29AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Oct 23, Mark Brown <broo...@debian.org> wrote:
> > I'd have expected to at least have seen something going round saying > > that the transition was mostly complete and that there were only a few > > packages blocking it prior to just dumping a new version of deboostrap > > in unstable and rendering everything instabuggy. Most similar > I did this in *february* for the other packages, but not this one since > you had recently suggested that it was not ready anyway. Telling other package maintainers doesn't help me know that this is a transition that's actually happening, and one of the things that would tell me that there might be some sense of urgency would be an indication that the transition was actually happening. I do remember you asking me about my plans to fix it but there was no context that this was anything more than a "hey, it'd be nice sometime". For things like this even if people aren't working on something now if there's a bigger picture it's good to tell people about it, something like "OK, but please note that we're actively working on this transition and expect it to be done for stretch" would've really helped here in avoiding surprise with sudden RC bugs out of nowhere. > > I didn't ask for help because I just don't care about this transition, > > in part because as I indicated there's no way to really use yp-tools at > > present so it's the least of anyone's worries so when I'm spending time > Maybe then the package should not be in testing anyway? It's not impossible that someone could use it, it's just not as useful as it could be.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
