Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 13/06/07 at 11:19 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum (lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net) [070612 23:17]:
> > On 12/06/07 at 22:23 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > NO!
> > >
> > > unstable is meant for packages that should be in the next stable release,
> > > as such only packages that are in the maintainer's opinion ready to migrate
> > > to testing should be uploaded to unstable.
> >
> > Then shouldn't we have a more aggressive policy about removals from
> > unstable, for packages that have failed to get into testing during the
> > past n months ?
>
> We have that policy, just nobody who does the QA-bits needed to make
> that happen.
What would be those QA bits ?
It would be easy to get the list of packages that haven't reached
testing in the n months (and have been in debian for more than n months).
I could even work on that during debconf, but then, there's the problem
of knowing who has the authority to remove packages from unstable. Such
tasks don't get you a lot of karma points, so, if removals are not
requested by someone with authority (release team or ftpmaster), this
will probably result in a lot of flames.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: