Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (following up here for now - I think it's a question that could do with more discussion than IRC really allows for)
> I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way the > ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, and in particular how they handle the > packages that are not really NEW : renamed binary/source packages, package > split, new kernel version and new library version which need a new package > upload. Speaking personally, it would certainly be nice if packages went through NEW quicker. However, I don't think that's entirely relevant: > Do you think there is currently a problem about this, and if so what do you > intent to change in this regard. Do I think there's a problem? Only in that people are unsure what causes delays in NEW processing, and as a result are unable to form a good opinion about whether those delays are acceptable or not. Fundamentally, it isn't the DPLs job to make judgements about the technical decisions a team makes. If the ftp-masters believe that the current handling of the NEW queue is the best way of doing so, then that's their decision to make. The developers have the right to criticise that, and it would be nice if we could have a reasonable discussion about whether it could be improved. In the end, if the developers and the ftp-masters continue to disagree, we have the technical committee to decide who's right. Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution. However, I will work to ensure that it's possible for people to find out /why/ NEW is processed the way it is. Teams have the authority to make technical decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest of the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
