On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 11:16:52PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 08:13:45PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
First thing: I don't think proposing extra beauracracy is the way to go;
we tend to get better results when someone uploads some code to make it
easier to do what's Right, rather than telling everybody they have to
do the Right Thing or else they can just go and do something else. Or
something.
> > So if Joe developer usually takes 3 months to get a working, finished
> > package of his extremely complex package 'foo' perfected, delaying
> > unstable's appearance for 2 months will just change joe's time to 3+2 = 5
> > months.
> You've got a point. We do need some way of making Jim developer, with
> release-critical (indeed, /any/ bugs) filed, realise it's really in
> his best interests to fix them, though. Perhaps not allowing someone
> to check in a new upload in unstable until release-critical bugs
> in frozen are fixed?
``Hi. We're about to freeze, and your package still has release critical
bugs, and as such, it's been moved to the newly created unstable.
If you'd like this package to be included in the distribution, please
resolve all the outstanding critical, grave and important bugs against
this package and upload a fixed package by November 30.''
(There shouldn't be any RC bugs in frozen, except against things like
dpkg. *grumble*)
Getting people to focus on fixing RC bugs all year round would be more
useful, of course.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpltaiQ_ixPt.pgp
Description: PGP signature