"M. Zhou" <lu...@debian.org> writes: > On Sat, 2022-08-27 at 09:50 +0200, Gard Spreemann wrote: >> >> I humbly disagree. Even from my own point of view, I may well be very >> motivated to package something I use seriously all the time, >> seriously. But then I see its dependency chain of 10 unpackaged >> items, >> start thinking about the probability that they'll *all* clear the NEW >> queue, and how long that would take, and I give up. And then there's >> the >> problem of attracting smaller contributions, as mentioned above: I >> really believe that people get put off from putting in 30 minutes of >> work for a nice MR on Salsa if they can't expect their work to hit >> the >> archives for months and months (suppose for example they contributed >> to >> a package whose SONAME is being bumped). > > I agree with your disagreement but I keep my opinion. My track record > involves maintaining loads of reverse dependency libraries. I've > already gone through all kinds of pains from the NEW queue and > eventually learned to take a break immediately after uploading > something to new. >
I consider you quite the hero for your massive contributions to the Debian deep learning ecosystem. But I do worry that there aren't enough Mo Zhous in the world ;-) > That said, if someone presents a GR proposal I'll join. In Debian, > it is not that easy to push something forward unless it hurts everyone. > Our NEW queue mechanism has been there for decades, and people are > already accustomed to it (including me). From multiple times of > discussion in the past, I don't see the NEW queue problem hurting > too many people. If nothing gets changed in the NEW queue mechanism, > people may gradually get used to it, following the "do not fix it > if it ain't wrong" rule. The voice will gradually vanish. … or people quietly vanish from contributing. Best, Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
