On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 05:17:48 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:54:37 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > >>> On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tuesday, December 02, 2014 04:15:05 PM Donald Stufft wrote: > >>> ... > >>> > >>>> I have another question. If we fix this in the upcoming pip 6 release > >>>> what > >>>> is the chances of getting an exception for pip 6 in the freeze? If I > >>>> can > >>>> solve the problem in pip proper and keep the delta between different > >>>> platforms smaller I can juggle around priorities and push the other big > >>>> ticket thing I was working on till another release. > >>> > >>> ... > >>> The deadline for getting Important (i.e. not Serious/Grave/Critical) bug > >>> fixes unblocked for Jessie is December 5th (that's uploaded to Debian > >>> and > >>> the release team has reviewed and unblocked it). > >>> > >>> Unless the next release is ~nothing but fixes for important/release > >>> critical bugs, the chance is approximately zero. > >>> > >>> Scott K > >> > >> This bug is marked “Serious” right? So if I understand correctly a new > >> version isn’t acceptable, even to fix a Serious issue, unless it only > >> fixes > >> items that are allowed within whatever phase the release process is in? > > > > A new release would be acceptable if it only fixed release critical stuff. > > The problem comes in where a new release fixes something serious and > > other stuff. > > > > Scott K > > Ok, so anything from upstream will need to be backported to 1.5.x then, > which might be a pain but I don’t think undoable. We reorganized some stuff > but it shouldn’t be impossible. > > Would a patch for this issue need to be done and uploaded and unblocked by > the Dec 5th? Or Since it’s a “Serious” issue is there a longer deadline? > > What’s the chances of accepting the status quo for Jessie and having an > upstream fix in Jessie+1? This isn’t a *new* problem, it exists in stable > and oldstable as well and it wasn’t unknown to be a problem previously > (there’s another ticket about making —user the default in BTS which > references this fact over a year ago). I’m not sure what would make it all > of a sudden a dire problem in Jesse, so if we can wait till Jesse+1 and I > can get a stakeholder to sit down with me and sort out what a solution > *needs* from the Debian side of things I can make sure a fix does land in > the next pip release which will be out far in advance of Jessie+1.
Assuming the maintainer doesn't decide to downgrade the bug (which I think is unlikely and a number of people would object to, so I think we can ignore it as a possibility), the decision to ignore the bug for Jessie belongs with the release team. If we choose not to fix it (and there's no Non-Maintainer Upload), then they will decide to either remove the package or ignore the bug. Since this particular issue is release critical, the December 5th deadline isn't relevant to a targeted fix just for this issue. Scott K _______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
