Re: Delegation for the Release Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 12/26/2013 09:35 AM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-12-26 at 09:02 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> It's seemed intuitively obvious to me that a "release goal" could
>> equally be defined as "a new criterion by which a package can be
>> judged to be RC-buggy".
>
> One of the defining points of release goals (at least as they've
> historically existed) is that the issues they cover are _not_
> release-critical.
Hmm.
I've understood it to be the case that a package failing to meet a
release goal had been treated as sufficient to either remove it from
testing, or delay the release. (I'm not sure offhand what that
understanding came from, but I thought I'd seen actual bugs to that
effect.)
If that isn't the case, then I may well be on completely the wrong track.
If it is, however, then that certainly sounds like a close enough match
to the idea (if not the definition) of "release-critical" to me...
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=ZokP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: