On 11/11/14 22:19, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Niels Thykier's message of 2014-11-11 13:05:49 -0800: >> On 2014-11-11 19:24, Clint Byrum wrote: >>> Excerpts from Daniel Pocock's message of 2014-11-11 00:59:36 -0800: >>>> On 11/11/14 06:05, Clint Byrum wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>> I think we should unblock 0.9.1. >>>> >>>> Release team have been a bit reluctant to unblock whole new versions >>>> without any justification at all >>>> >>>> In this case though, maybe they can accept that there was a good reason >>>> why it wasn't in testing before the freeze: >>>> >>>> [...] >>> >>> The upload only missed being in testing by 3 days, and fixes a number >>> of issues. We don't want to ship with an old API. Seems like an easy >>> unblock this early in the freeze. >>> >> >> >> Honestly, no - the arguments present are really not all that >> interesting. In fact, they are a-dime-a-dozen right now. >> >> In particular, my argument for rejecting pynag/0.9.1 is that the diff is >> simply too large to reasonably comprehend. > > Who exactly are we affecting negatively by unblocking this package? > > Because we're going to waste a number of pynag users' time by not > unblocking it and witholding the fixes and new features, as well as > wasting the syslog-nagios-bridge maintainers' time by requiring them to > backport to the old API, so I want to understand the reason we want to > do that. >
For me, it is not about backporting, it is actually a fault in the 0.8.9 release but it is also very easily fixed by the patch I proposed. The type of person who uses PyNag will probably have no trouble getting 0.9.1 and later versions from jessie-backports if the release team can't do an unblock for the new version. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
