Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12110

Re: Severity bump script

From Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.maint.python, linux.debian.devel.release
Subject Re: Severity bump script
Date 2019-12-05 12:10 +0100
Message-ID <z9Xbb-8ac-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <z1aAF-482-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <z1bGp-4LZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <z8Fgl-8ku-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <z8Zyq-4iK-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <z9ftw-5Xo-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi,

On 03-12-2019 13:19, Matthias Klose wrote:
> It's unfortunate that issues for some packages only get attention when the
> severity of an issue is raised.  Following your proposal means that the issue is
> probably ignored forever, and you don't propose a better way going forward, just
> saying we should stop earlier.  I don't think that's the correct choice.  For
> now these seem to be single packages, so please could you name those, and we can
> look at those with a priority?  That's at least a path that is forward looking,
> or feel free to propose another approach better than your current proposal for
> not getting the attention of maintainers.

I guess what I'm asking for could be fulfilled by an announcement to
d-d-a with a package list (including via which package(s) they are
affected) attached including the standard grouping by DD. And then some
time to react.

Paul

PS, my original typed reply below. After having writing it, the idea
above emerged.

My problem with the current approach is that the way that developers
learn that they (potentially transitively) (build) depend on a Python 2
package is by the autoremoval message. I don't think that is acceptable
socially in the project. My proposal is to give the maintainers about
those packages a heads up. Via a bug report may be a bit weird in cases,
but in some cases may be the appropriate thing as the package could work
around the (build) dependency. At least adding "affects" helps a tiny
bit and direct e-mails to the maintainers (e.g. via the
<package>@packages.debian.org address will at least give them a heads
up. Even if the RM bug is coming eventually.

Again, I don't have a problem with Python 2 removal, even at the price
of packages that don't care that their dependency is written in Python.
I do care about proper communication. Using RC severity to trigger
autoremoval for non-leaf packages just yet is not appropriate in the
opinion of the release team. Even though I am well aware of the Python 2
removal effort I can tell from personal experience (cacti) that
receiving an autoremoval e-mail as the first sign of such a dependency
isn't nice, that's the problem I'm having and that needs solving in my
opinion.

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-11 07:50 +0100
  Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-11 16:50 +0100
  Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-15 01:20 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2019-11-15 19:50 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-16 04:10 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-22 09:40 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-22 22:30 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-27 20:40 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-28 04:20 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-28 13:40 +0100
              Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-28 19:10 +0100
                Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-11-28 21:00 +0100
  Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-01 22:50 +0100
    Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 20:30 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 20:40 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:20 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:30 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 22:50 +0100
            Re: Severity bump script Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-12-02 23:40 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-12-03 10:40 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2019-12-02 21:00 +0100
      Re: Severity bump script Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-12-03 13:30 +0100
        Re: Severity bump script Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-05 12:10 +0100
          Re: Severity bump script Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-08 21:00 +0100
            Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2019-12-14 21:00 +0100
              Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-12-18 07:10 +0100
                Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2019-12-22 12:00 +0100
                Re: Proposal on how to proceed with Python 2 removal from bullseye Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2020-01-07 00:20 +0100

csiph-web