Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> (08/07/2012): > That version grew a bug which people were hitting often -- #679788, > thats the only reason I hurried up with the new version. People > started upping severity exactly to STOP it from entering testing. > So there's no way it'd enter testing with this bug, even it if > has an easy workaround. Heh? It's your call as the maintainer of a given package to set a bug report's severity. Depending on the actual bug and the easiness of the workaround, sticking to severity: important could have worked just fine. Of course, we could have answered that if you had actually asked us before uploading and killing the automatically-granted exception… > What I can say for sure is that I wont be able to support 1.0 version > (which is currently in testing). It will be difficult already to > support 1.1, due to the same reasons, but at least the bugs already > fixed in 1.1 are not needed to be backported. Are you saying we should never release qemu-kvm? Or that you /could/ work out something if we would let 1.1 in wheezy? > Well. Let's remove it from wheezy when. I can work it out in the > bpo, it will even be easier this way. After all, I already carried > it for about 2 years from my site during lenny times. Maybe we could make something happen anyway, e.g. by letting it stay for a longer period in unstable before considering an unblock. But I'll let some other team members voice their opinion on this topic. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature