Le dimanche 11 mars 2012 à 17:58 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit : > Le dimanche 11 mars 2012 13:21:57, Michael Scherer a écrit : > > Le samedi 10 mars 2012 à 10:26 +0100, Thierry Vignaud a écrit : > > > Hi > > > > > > please let in xonotic-0.6.0 > > > It's just a game that impacts nothing else. > > > > Niet. > > > > That's bugfix or security fixes. > > Communication tip for the future : when such a policy change happens (this is > a policy change, there were more exceptions in the past before package > freeze, > for leaf packages without weird deps and post/pre scripts and little impact), > let's try to highlight it *before*.
We asked if people understood what version freeze mean, and people all said yes. http://meetbot.mageia.org/mageia-dev/2012/mageia-dev.2012-02-15-20.13.log.html#l-75 So I assumed that people were aware of what was posted last time : http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.mageia.devel/4015 and that "very good reasons" where basically the same for everybody. It seems there is some misunderstanding, likely coming from another discussion that the one I found. Can people just tell me where they have seen their interpretation of freeze, cause I have read the one I posted twice, I still think it correspond that what i just said. > There was a communication effort to announce the freeze: I read freeze > announce, was present at the last packager meeting. However it didn't struck > me, it all looked like the usual end of release cycle, with their > common-sense > exceptions. > > A message such as "contrarily as what happened in the past" (this is the > important part, highlight a *change*), "there will be no exception even for > leaf non-critical packages, so that you all focus on bugfixes, as we know > that > otherwise you will not fix bugs and continue updating your packages". I took a look at the archives for the last round ( ie mageia 1 ), thanks to evolution. Since people were upset because this exception should have been granted, I assumed that the same type of exception would have been granted in the past numerous times ( I mean, if people didn't remember the mail saying "this would not be granted", that's likely because we granted it several time, enough time to have people totally forget what was posted in the first place ). I found exactly 1 package that not at least saying "that's a bug fix release", "this fix a CVE", "it fix upgrade"., ie all reasons that were announced "we would likely let this pass". It was alienarena on 06/05/2011, and it was pushed by boklm around 2h after the mail was sent. That's the only one I can find that was not corresponding at the criteria we laid out for being a regular exception ( cf url given sooner ), but it was still granted. We trusted boklm as well as others to choose, so he did. But still, if we look at the list given before ( and since no one answered at all and no one complained later, I assumed that everybody agreed, especially since this was based on common sense ), it was said "it would likely not pass". So if there wasn't others ( and I will assume that's the case unless someone show others examples that I could have missed ), we can see that the whole "but it was granted last time" assumption is either based on : - 1 single rpm being a exception that would have been refused and that wasn't ( ie, a weak example ) or : - based on a different "last time" than last year ( and then why did no one complained last year is left as a exercise ) or : - based on different perception of what type of exception were granted last time, perception that doesn't align with the reality of the archives I checked. But so far, I think that we are basically and roughly coherent when compared to the last freeze period. Therefore, I do not see the need to communicate a change when there was in fact no changes on the side of the policy. And sorry, I cannot communicate to say that what people remember do not correspond to what was done. And we can see that as tmb said, the problem is not that granting would disturb the distribution, but that granting once for a minor package would lead to the same type of lengthy and heated discussion as we are having now, but for each packages. The more complex the rules are, the more discussion and the more problem we will have to solve. -- Michael Scherer
