Hi team l! > I of course feel disappointed that some people left. Even more orphaning > packages, instead of moving them to another namespace. But that's the > way it is, IMO it was the only way to make the team more welcoming
I agree with Tomás! It was sad to lose some team members. And in order not to leave some important packages orphaned, I adopted some and am working to adopt others. Still agreeing with Thomas, in the packages I maintain I follow the same attitude: introducing autopkgtests and trying to correct as many construction failures as possible, so that the transition is as less traumatic as possible. I believe that if everyone mobilizes in a coordinated way, with well-defined objectives (I say this not in a critical tone) many headaches will be avoided Nilson F. Silva ________________________________ De: Thomas Goirand <tho...@goirand.fr> Enviado: quarta-feira, 12 de junho de 2024 11:11 Para: Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org>; Debian Python <debian-python@lists.debian.org> Cc: d...@debian.org <d...@debian.org>; pi...@debian.org <pi...@debian.org>; stefa...@debian.org <stefa...@debian.org> Assunto: Re: Contacting DPT On 6/6/24 17:40, Andreas Tille wrote: > - Do you consider the workload of your team equally shared amongst its > members? The team probably lacks organization, and there's no clear enough strategy for end goals. I know we're moving toward getting rid of: - six - mock - nose but is anyone doing any type of coordination for the work to be done ? The only thing I'm seeing is bugs against "my" packages that I try to close asap. > - In the beginning of this year there was a change in the policy of DPT. > I'd like to hear your opinion about: > * The process how it went (possibly with suggestions to do better) > * The final result after a couple of months > (I'm specifically interested also in the opinion of people who were > not happy about the change.) I was very happy that it happened, so it clarifies better what package should be in, or out of the team. Now there's no middle ground: all packages in the team are ... well ... in the team! I of course feel disappointed that some people left. Even more orphaning packages, instead of moving them to another namespace. But that's the way it is, IMO it was the only way to make the team more welcoming. > - Since a long time we try to migrate from Python3.11 to Python3.12. > * What are your thoughts about the transition process? > * Can you identify some blockers? > * Do you have some suggestions for enhancements of this process? It's been a waaaaay too long. Normally, this type of transition takes a few months. Not half a year. The way it is with Py 3.12 is unsustainable. Clearly, this cannot happen with Python 3.13, otherwise we must decide *now* to release Trixie with Python 3.12. The thing is, I have no way to identify any blocker, and I wouldn't know where to start to help. IMO, it would help if those strongly involved in the transition were move vocal about how we could help. On my side, I made sure all the packages I maintain are testing against all available interpreter versions, including when building and in autopkgtest, but I'd like to know where I could help for packages I'm less familiar with. Hopefully, we can discuss this during Debconf and find ways to make the transition process smoother. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
