On 02/27/2012 10:19 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Sebastien Bacher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Le 25/02/2012 17:15, Ubuntu Installer a écrit : >>> Rejected: >>> Rejected by archive administrator. >>> >>> gnome-control-center (1:3.3.90-0ubuntu3) precise; urgency=low >>> >>> * debian/patches/62_update_translations_template.patch: >>> - update POTFILES.in with the ubuntu specific sources for >> translation >> Hey, >> >> Dunno who rejected that upload so comment on the list, is there an >> issue >> to accept several versions at once? What happened there is that >> somebody >> else uploaded a new revision while mine was in the queue, so I guess >> whoever dealt with those accepted the new one and rejected the previous >> >> one, which is fine but: >> >> - the change I did was never advertised on -changes (which means people >> >> who use the list to track what is changing get confused) >> - if there is any bug that should have been closed with that upload if >> wouldn't have been closed >> - the uploader gets a rejection mail with explanation which is >> confusing >> >> We could say that uploaders should check the unapproved queue before >> uploading a new revision of something in the queue and use -v, but >> wouldn't it be simpler to just accept both versions and let launchpad busy >> and >> deal with the builds? > I think that was me. > > IIRC the buildd's were busy and it seemed wasteful. The lower revision would > probably end up failed to upload. > > While I don't know of specific bugs, I think inviting Soyuz to get in a race > with itself is generally not prudent. > > Scott K > If it's the same source package, if the later one is accepted first, the earlier one will fail to build for superseded source (i.e. never start). Still, I think in this case either both should be allowed in descending order, or both rejected so that someone can do a proper upload showing all the changes. There's also the worry that changes can be missed in cases like this as like what happened with apt-cacher-ng [1][2][3] It seems like rejecting both with a message telling the uploaders to talk to each other seems most prudent unless it's a critical fix.
Thanks, Micah [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/precise-changes/2012-February/010766.html [2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/precise-changes/2012-February/010772.html [3] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/precise-changes/2012-February/010805.html -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
