On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Dominik George wrote: > > >If there are other issues to solve than the lifespan of the package > > >version, they must be solved in another way. > > > > I agree with you, it is the best outcome. But when people with power > > (-backports ftp masters) are not willing to consider it, we have to go > > with plan B, which is less than ideal, but can move things forward. > > Plan B in this case are PPAs. If you want to engage in that idea, please > do separately from the -volatile idea. > > > >> As I said, gitlab was not about manpower. This new repo is completly > > >against > > >> our vision of what backports is. Therefore we don't want it within > > >the > > >> backports suite. > > > > > > If people argue both ways, how can we answer? Either it adds more work > > for -backports team or it does not. Some people say its not fair to > > add more load while ftp masters say its not about load. > > As Alex laid out, it's mostly just the -backports team handling the NEW > queue. So all of this really is independent from -backports, if another > NEW queue is added (which I do not think is the best idea, but still > possible). > > But, I do not think it is possible to start -volatile completely > independently. I am pretty certain there is enough man power to handle > it as a new suite, but on the other hand I am also certain there is not > enough manpower to operate a compelte set of seperate services for it. as said, we are also guests on the ftpmaster services. They are the people to ask. The NEW queue is just a minor detail of a suite.
Alex
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
