On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 19:38 +0200, Markus Koschany wrote: > On 13.09.2016 18:25, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On 2016-09-13 12:55, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > >> On 09/13/2016 01:49 PM, Santiago Vila wrote: > >>> You can't reproduce it, or you don't want to reproduce it? > >> > >> I added the tag because I couldn't reproduce the issue in unstable where > >> we build our packages. It's great that it's reproducible in testing, but > >> we don't upload to testing. > > > > Sometimes we do... > > > > In any case, that's not the point. Testing is what will become stable. > > Packages in stable need to be buildable on stable (for security updates > > and point releases) and "does the package currently build in testing?" > > is the best approximation we can have to "will the package build when > > it's in stable?". > > > >> I consider the tag appropriate, if there is > >> consensus in the project that it's not feel free to remove the tags > >> again. > > > > Regardless of whether there's consensus that you agree with, it's an RC > > bug to not build within the same release, and has been for several > > releases now. > > Several people are missing the point here in my opinion. [...] > So instead of playing severity and tag ping-pong, the time would be > better spent into investigating if the gdal transition is causing the > FTBFS in Stretch. [...] > What I find disturbing is that we really think that shaming the > maintainer would be a better approach. Who cares if he uses the > unreproducible tag, if he wants to get feedback about the issue from > others?
If one wants to indicate via metadata that feedback is wanted, some combination of "help" and "moreinfo" would seem more relevant. > We should care more about the human cost of this thread. Note that none of the parts of my mail that you quoted have anything to do with "shaming the maintainer", "playing severity and tag ping-pong" or any specific bugs in particular. They're a response to the suggestion that packages only need to be buildable in unstable, which is incorrect for the reasons mentioned. (So, if anything, I'd argue that by hanging your reply off my mail, you were in fact missing the point.) Regards, Adam
