Re: Any problem with samba 2:3.5.8~dfsg-1~bpo60+1?

[Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>]

  Hi, bubulle.

* Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> [2011-04-17 07:28:11 CEST]:
> I uploaded a backport of samba 2 weeks ago. After a first mess where I
> (again) forgot to  include the revision history since last version in
> squeeze, I think I managed it right, now.
> 
> Is there any reason (except lack of ${manpower}, which I always
> understand) for it not being processed?

 Actually things like these are what somewhat makes me uncertain wether
it would be a good idea to get it in. There were regular issues with the
samba backports in lenny-bpo during that period, and this even made one
of your samba maintenance team members speak up in opposition wether
backports bugreports reports should be integrated into the BTS.

 Don't get me wrong, I can understand that it indeed would be useful to
have samba backports available (minus what you mentioned, that certain
fixes _do_ belong in squeeze-updates and backports is not the place to
avoid to have to get fixes into stable directly), I am just a bit
worried about the past history of the backport with respect to QA
approaches.

 Given that people expect a hopefully understandable stability of
backports because they are meant to be used with an otherwise stable
system I would like to know of your ideas and approaches you want to
apply to avoid these issues in the future.

 Thanks for your hopefully understanding of these concerns,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |