Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#1058589: developers-reference: please mention urgency=critical/emergency for completeness
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel Gröber
Dec 13, 2023, 8:00:04 AM12/13/23
to
Source: developers-reference
Severity: normal
Hi,
> 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency
mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also
supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well.
Something like:
- The delays are currently 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low).
+ The delays are currently 0, 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency: critical/emergency, high, medium or low respectively. Where emergency is simply an alias for critical.
Thanks,
--Daniel
Severity: normal
Hi,
> 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency
mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also
supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well.
Something like:
- The delays are currently 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low).
+ The delays are currently 0, 2, 5 or 10 days, depending on the urgency: critical/emergency, high, medium or low respectively. Where emergency is simply an alias for critical.
Thanks,
--Daniel
Daniel Gröber
Dec 13, 2023, 1:10:05 PM12/13/23
to
Hi Holger,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 02:19:14PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I still closing this as documenting those severities has no
> practical benefit, and in fact might confuse people thinking using those
> severities would be encouraged or useful, which is both not the case.
That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
Thanks,
--Daniel
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 02:19:14PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:55:21PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > > 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency
> > mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also
> > supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well.
>
> thanks for filing this bug report, even with a patch, basically!
> > > 6.3.2. Selecting the upload urgency
> > mentions only high, medum and low urgency values. Britney also
> > supports critical and emergency. These should be documented as well.
>
>
> I'm sorry I still closing this as documenting those severities has no
> practical benefit, and in fact might confuse people thinking using those
> severities would be encouraged or useful, which is both not the case.
That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
Thanks,
--Daniel
Holger Levsen
Dec 13, 2023, 2:30:05 PM12/13/23
to
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
> Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
> available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
> else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity
> That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
> Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
> available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
> else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
which is not used in practice.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
half the worlds poor life in resource rich countries.
HOME: https://youtu.be/Eu6ieWI3yjI
Daniel Gröber
Dec 13, 2023, 4:40:04 PM12/13/23
to
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:24:49PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
> > Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
> > available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
> > else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
>
> I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity
> which is not used in practice.
Easier said than done. I see debian-policy@d.o is already CCed on this bug
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > That's fine, but in that case this fact should be documented instead no?
> > Right now there's confusion across the docs what criticality levels are
> > available. Britney.conf and d-policy mention critical/emergency but nothing
> > else even acknowledges they exist which is just confusing.
>
> I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity
> which is not used in practice.
so, opinions?
Doesn't policy document the reality that these urgency values are in fact
usable? Do you not agree that britney does in fact support these? If I go
ahead and upload a package with urgency=critical will this be REJECTed by
ftp-master?
If not they exist so why shouldn't they be documented in devref?
--Daniel
Holger Levsen
Dec 14, 2023, 8:00:03 AM12/14/23
to
control: reopen -1
control: reassign -1 debian-policy
control: retitle -1 please stop mentioning urgency=critical
thanks
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:27:20PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:24:49PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity
> > which is not used in practice.
> Easier said than done. I see debian-policy@d.o is already CCed on this bug
> so, opinions?
debian-policy@ has been cc: on this bug because developers-reference and
debian-policy share the same mailinglist.
> Doesn't policy document the reality that these urgency values are in fact
> usable? Do you not agree that britney does in fact support these? If I go
> ahead and upload a package with urgency=critical will this be REJECTed by
> ftp-master?
It will not be rejected but setting the urgency has little practical
relevance these days. You could also upload with urgency=low or urgency=high
and that would be the same in practice.
> If not they exist so why shouldn't they be documented in devref?
- because it will make people use them
- because people always think their issues are critical
- because using them will not have an effect
- because people will then complain that they have no effect
- because all of this is a waste of someones time.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
https://showyourstripes.info
control: reassign -1 debian-policy
control: retitle -1 please stop mentioning urgency=critical
thanks
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 10:27:20PM +0100, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:24:49PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > I believe Debian policy should be changed then and not mention a severity
> > which is not used in practice.
> Easier said than done. I see debian-policy@d.o is already CCed on this bug
> so, opinions?
debian-policy share the same mailinglist.
> Doesn't policy document the reality that these urgency values are in fact
> usable? Do you not agree that britney does in fact support these? If I go
> ahead and upload a package with urgency=critical will this be REJECTed by
> ftp-master?
relevance these days. You could also upload with urgency=low or urgency=high
and that would be the same in practice.
> If not they exist so why shouldn't they be documented in devref?
- because people always think their issues are critical
- because using them will not have an effect
- because people will then complain that they have no effect
- because all of this is a waste of someones time.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Bill Allombert
Dec 14, 2023, 8:20:04 AM12/14/23
to
A long time ago in a distro not far away, packages for non-i386 were built
manually by porters that used the urgency to decide which packages to build
first.
I do not think this is still the case, except that the security queue is build
first by the autobuilders.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ball...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
0 new messages