On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:00:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Wed, 24 May 2017, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >... > > > Imagine someone else would have done the python-django backport, > > > and would upload 1.10 to jessie-backports today. > > > What would you as user do? > > > > You are again diverting the discussion to another problem. This is > > not my situation... in the general case, the user can't rely on > > the version in jessie-backports to not change in backwards incompatible > > way. > > This is not a diversion, this is actually the core of the problem. > > Should backports follow a general and predictable policy, > or should they follow whatever suits best the personal > usecase of the developer doing the backport? > > Backports should follow a policy that makes it attractive to use for users, and attractive to contribute to for maintainers. A general and predictable policy is a means towards that end, to be sure. However, "the personal usecase of the developer doing the backport" is a strawman in this discussion. -- Jan
_______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
