Bug#459343: developers reference: uploads to stable need a mail to debian-release to be considered

2008-06-07 Thread Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
tags 459343 + pending
thanks

Heya,

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 * Please make it more clear that uploads to stable / oldstable do need a
 mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 * It would also be good to not use stable-proposed-updates if uploading
 is mentioned as uploading to stable-proposed-updates doesn't work.
 
 * Mentioning oldstable / oldstable-proposed-updates might also make sense...
 
 * Uploading security updates is mentioned as a deprecated practice, I
 think it would be better to link to the section about security uploads
 and mention that security issues not considered for a DSA can still be
 considered for proposed-updates...
 The following patch addresses all of these suggestions. The first item
 was done by moving the contact information from the end of the section
 to the first paragraph, which seems more sane, as it's the most
 important bit. Please review:

Comitted now.

Marc
-- 
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
217: geräteunabhängig
   Sieht nirgends gut aus. Ist nicht Herstellers Schuld. (Dietz Proepper)


pgpG7xHy1lrWz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Bug#459343: developers reference: uploads to stable need a mail to debian-release to be considered

2008-06-03 Thread Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt
tags 459343 + patch
thanks

Heya,

Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 * Please make it more clear that uploads to stable / oldstable do need a
 mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 * It would also be good to not use stable-proposed-updates if uploading
 is mentioned as uploading to stable-proposed-updates doesn't work.
 
 * Mentioning oldstable / oldstable-proposed-updates might also make sense...
 
 * Uploading security updates is mentioned as a deprecated practice, I
 think it would be better to link to the section about security uploads
 and mention that security issues not considered for a DSA can still be
 considered for proposed-updates...

The following patch addresses all of these suggestions. The first item
was done by moving the contact information from the end of the section
to the first paragraph, which seems more sane, as it's the most
important bit. Please review:

Index: pkgs.dbk
===
--- pkgs.dbk(revision 5203)
+++ pkgs.dbk(working copy)
@@ -284,16 +284,25 @@
 time.
 /para
 section id=upload-stable
-titleSpecial case: uploads to the literalstable/literal 
distribution/title
+titleSpecial case: uploads to the literalstable/literal and 
+literaloldstable/literal distributions/title
 para
 Uploading to literalstable/literal means that the package will transfered
-to the literalproposed-updates-new/literal-queue for review by the stable
+to the literalproposed-updates-new/literal queue for review by the stable
 release managers, and if approved will be installed in
 filenamestable-proposed-updates/filename directory of the Debian archive.
 From there, it will be included in literalstable/literal with the next
 point release.
 /para
 para
+To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
+with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to
+the email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to
+apply to the package version currently in literalstable/literal. Always
+be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
+literalstable/literal distribution.
+/para
+para
 Extra care should be taken when uploading to literalstable/literal.
 Basically, a package should only be uploaded to literalstable/literal if
 one of the following happens:
@@ -321,7 +330,10 @@
 used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
 filenameproposed-updates/filename archive when the advisory is released.
 See xref linkend=bug-security/ for detailed information on handling
-security problems.
+security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
+benign to be fixed through a literalDSA/literal, the stable release
+managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
+upload to literalstable/literal.
 /para
 para
 Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
@@ -338,20 +350,10 @@
 making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
 /para
 para
-The Release Team (which can be reached at
-email-debian-release;) will regularly evaluate the uploads to
-literalstable-proposed-updates/literal and decide if your package can be
-included in literalstable/literal.  Please be clear (and verbose, if
-necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
-literalstable/literal, because otherwise the package won't be considered
-for inclusion.
+Uploads to the literaloldstable/literal distributions are possible as
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for literalstable
+/literal apply.
 /para
-para
-It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
-emphasisbefore/emphasis uploading to
-literalstable/literal/literalstable-proposed-updates/literal, so
-that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
-/para
 /section
 
 section id=upload-t-p-u

Marc
-- 
BOFH #199:
the curls in your keyboard cord are losing electricity.


pgpRmmqI5fuXi.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Bug#459343: developers reference: uploads to stable need a mail to debian-release to be considered

2008-06-03 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 03/06/08 at 11:09 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
 tags 459343 + patch
 thanks
 
 Heya,
 
 Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  * Please make it more clear that uploads to stable / oldstable do need a
  mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  * It would also be good to not use stable-proposed-updates if uploading
  is mentioned as uploading to stable-proposed-updates doesn't work.
  
  * Mentioning oldstable / oldstable-proposed-updates might also make sense...
  
  * Uploading security updates is mentioned as a deprecated practice, I
  think it would be better to link to the section about security uploads
  and mention that security issues not considered for a DSA can still be
  considered for proposed-updates...
 
 The following patch addresses all of these suggestions. The first item
 was done by moving the contact information from the end of the section
 to the first paragraph, which seems more sane, as it's the most
 important bit. Please review:

Sounds good.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Bug#459343: developers reference: uploads to stable need a mail to debian-release to be considered

2008-01-05 Thread Luk Claes
Package: developers-reference

Hi

* Please make it more clear that uploads to stable / oldstable do need a
mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

* It would also be good to not use stable-proposed-updates if uploading
is mentioned as uploading to stable-proposed-updates doesn't work.

* Mentioning oldstable / oldstable-proposed-updates might also make sense...

* Uploading security updates is mentioned as a deprecated practice, I
think it would be better to link to the section about security uploads
and mention that security issues not considered for a DSA can still be
considered for proposed-updates...

Cheers

Luk



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]