Re: An alarming trend (no it's not flaimbait.) (fwd)
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 09:36:13AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > > Oh god no. Please no. Inflating bug severeties just makes it harder to
> > > do releases; if there's a problem with normal bugs being ignored (and,
> > > IMO, there is), it needs to be addressed directly, not worked around by
> > > filing everything as important or higher.
> > But I think the point here is that the presence of a jillion normal
> > bugs, unaddressed for years, constitutes a release-critical bug, and
> > we want some way to filter such packages out of the release. At
> > least, that's what I thought the idea was about.
> No, it's not that simple. dpkg is perfectly releasable right now, in spite
> of a jillion normal bugs. Heck, now that Wichert and Adam are working on it,
> it's even an example of a well maintained package.
Both Wichert and I go in spurts. Once about every 4 months or so, it seems.
We usually don't do it at the same time either.
I do tend to read all the dpkg bugs once every 4 months. I tend to fix bugs
that are similiar each time I do so. My last go at dpkg I fixed most
outstanding install-info bugs(they should all be marked pending(I love that
tag)).
Of course, there are hints that there is another segfault bug out there, with
the latest version in woody. It's not repeatable, however. Also, on this
note, I stand by 1.9.18, as being one of the most safest versions of dpkg,
with regard to buffer overruns, and the like.
Reply to: