Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.albasani.net!tahina.priv.at!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java
Subject: Re: [Reproducible-builds] Usefulness of periodic reproducible builds  e-mails
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:30:05 +0200
Message-ID: <qe50V-1Za-85@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qe4et-Oh-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe4et-Oh-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe4ob-ZN-57@gated-at.bofh.it> <qe4Hw-1BQ-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <emmanuel.bourg@gmail.com>
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 13
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:8395

Le 29/09/2015 17:08, Holger Levsen a écrit :

> I agree and am wondering if we should actually do this, and limit (maintainer) 
> notifications to unstable? What do you think?

Well, if I understood your "this graph is a lie" properly in your talks,
I think the reproducibility in testing isn't very interesting for now,
until the tool chain matures and we have really reproducible packages in
unstable. At this point the testing notifications will have much more sense.

So yes, limiting maintainer notifications to unstable would be a good idea.

Emmanuel Bourg