MOTU Application

[Stefan Potyra]

Hi Matthias,

Am Freitag 31 August 2007 16:16:46 schrieb Mathias Gug:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Stefan Potyra wrote:
> > So here's another question from me: I remember a problem, when the split
> > of gs-esp to gs-esp-x and gs-esp for ubuntu-server had caused a number of
> > bugs on other packages in the archive. Especially it was not known back
> > then, which other packages were even affected by that split. While I
> > don't want to blame anyone here (I only remember that very bug right now,
> > because I was affected as a user myself), it shows a problem that arises
> > with different groups focussing on different goals: Hence I wonder what
> > your opinion is on the following: Is it reasonable for a specific goal to
> > break a number of packages from a "lower priority" archive such as
> > universe? Also, what do you think would be the best approach to alleviate
> > the results of such a breakage?
>
> I don't know the specific issues about the gs split, but I think it's
> hard to avoid breaking other packages. What's important in that case is
> to be able to catch the breakage as early as possible and communicate
> about it.
>
> Increased automatic testing can help to notice such situation.  Then
> communicating about it is the next important step. Identifying which
> packages may be affected and how to fix them are part of this effort.
> Universe being a volunteer driven project, it's hard to set deadlines.
> On the other hand, we cannot wait to update a package (being in main or
> universe) until all the affected packages are fixed. We just don't have
> enough man power to cover all the packages.
>
> Sending a notice about a breaking upload giving a few weeks to fix
> packages should help. That sort of changes should also be done early in the
> release cycle.

Right. Communicating about breakages is imho a key factor...

>
> Prioritizing the list of broken package can also be considered: the more
> there are users of the package, the more effort should be put into
> fixing the packages.

And this sounds very reasonable as well.

Thanks for the insights, and +1 on your application from me.

Cheers,
   Stefan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/attachments/20070831/340ddbd2/attachment.pgp