Path: csiph.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Barry Warsaw Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: python-networkx_1.10-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into experimental Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 23:30:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Oct 5 21:22:41 2015 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -5 Organization: The Organization of Unorganized Woozalists X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.12.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/12787 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20151005172221.7fce867b@limelight.wooz.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 31 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 17:22:21 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <20151005172221.7fce867b@limelight.wooz.org> X-Original-References: <561228AC.3090103@debian.org> <5612724E.9060007@debian.org> <206296351.XFVvngxEbP@kitterma-e6430> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:7477 On Oct 05, 2015, at 10:57 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I agree that disabling package test suites doesn't improve their quality. >Were these bad tests? Did you report these issues upstream? Silently passing broken tests was one of a common pattern of issues I found when making Python 3.5 supported in Ubuntu. The tests were broken, and I reported upstream or fixed the ones I found. I was skeptical about this mock change, and it did cause churn, but it was important for longer term increasing the quality of the archive. >Personally, even if the team was the maintainer of the package, I would never >just upload something without giving a ping to anyone who was active as an >uploader. I think it's just polite, even if it goes beyond what the team >strictly requires (note: I did this exact thing over the weekend for pyside, >got a quick ping back and did a team upload - it's not that hard). > >If we can't get the social part of Debian right, the technical part gets very >hard. This is not a side issue. Fully agreed, and I think it's a *good* thing we've been having this discussion. It makes me want to double check the assertions about maintainership in the packages I touch, and it makes me be doubly conscience of other maintainer's preferences here. But let's be sure to capture these norms in Debian Python policy or the team wiki pages. I think Scott, you were going to propose some changes to policy in this area? Cheers, -Barry