On Wednesday 03 December 2008 22:01:45 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 03/12/08 at 19:52 +0200, George Danchev wrote: > > I'm afraid that skipping the 3rd thing `trying to reduce the number of > > bugs in Debian' [1] would lead to a massive waste of time for > > autobuilders caused by these subsequent uploads meant to bring the > > package(s) in a technically sane shape, that is what would have been > > rejected by the ftpmasters in the first place. > > Buildds are machines, that only eat power. Unless we have a GR to > change the SC to "Our priorities are our users, free software and the > environment", I don't think that we should value power higher than > DDs and users' frustrations.
I still think that you are barking the wrong tree. Instead of lowering quality by abolishing already established and working safe-guards, just add more manpower to NEW processing task or accept it as it is. > > So, it is much better these to be detected and probably rejected > > before doing any more harm on their way. Low quality packages won't help > > users either, nor these users get the finally fixed and brought into > > relatively sane shape package faster. > > I'm quite sure that most of our users would value "getting all new > versions of important software a week earlier" higher than "get packages > later, but with less packaging bugs". As already pointed out in this > thread, lots of people use Ubuntu despite the (perceived) lower quality > of universe packages :P In that case, you don't leave people the option to choose between `newer packages' and `more stable packages'. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
