>This was largely because there was no good tool to make changes to the >overrides of just one package. However, Daniel Silverstone recently >wrote a script, so such requests should be dealt with much more >quickly. That's very cool. :-)
>In any case, it's also not that removals are >only done by James. Daniel also does removals, and I'm in regular >contact with him. That's very cool as well. :-) >Well, you'd simply make a QA person an ftpmaster, but as I said above, I was thinking that ftpmasters probably have other abilities as well (editing katie, changing the web pages, reviewing NEW packages, handling byhand stuff) -- I was noting that the routine chores of removing obsolete packages and updating priority/section seem to constitute a lot of requests which don't require a lot of thought compared to the others. >I like the division of power and don't think it's currently a major >problem. I don't know the status of #225537 [1], but package removals >are normally done fairly quickly. It's worst-case performance that hurts here -- average performance is great. >[1] I assume the delay might be related to the bug asking for removal >from unstable and stable. ftpmaster cannot do stable removals, they >are only done at point releases. Perhaps cloning the bug and having >one for stable and one for unstable would help, but I'm only >speculating here. I'll try that.... Actually, there are a fair number of bugs languishing against ftp.debian.org because they're for removals from woody. I suppose that these don't belong as bugs against ftp.debian.org, and just clutter the bug list up -- they seem not to get noticed when new stable point releases are made, anyway. However, they belong as bugs against *something*. Perhaps there should be a standard pseudo-package for archive bugs against the stable release, for the stable release manager to check? (Or is there and I'm missing it?)
