Re: woody is getting worse...
On Tue, 2001-10-16 at 09:40, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 08:53:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The testing scripts have never been about ensuring that woody doesn't have
> > any bugs at all; it's been about ensuring that it doesn't have release
> > critical bugs. Neither 114186 nor 115752 have been marked as RC. I'd've
> > thought 115752 should be at least "serious" ("in the maintainer's opinion
> > makes the package unsuitable for release"), fwiw.
> Re: 115752
> There are plenty of bugs I don't intend to "release" XFree86 with, but
> one that requires only a 5-second edit to conffile doesn't strike me as
> "serious" by any stretch of the imagination.
> If there are people using woody who can't handle firing up a text editor
> to remove a pair of quotes from a 2-line file, they need to go back to
> playing Pong.
Dude, I know that for the average "hacker" or coder or whatnot, ya,
that's fine; it's what I did. ~,^ But there are lots of *non*
technical users of Debian, too... and I, for one, setup boxes for such
users with testing since stable is too damn old and "unfeatureful" (not
a word, oh well) for the average dumb user (they need/want latest
KDE/GNOME, better XFree86, etc.). If these people have to fire up a
text editor to do *anything*, they're going to start asking for Windows
again. Picky bastards. ~,^
Just something you might wanna keep in mind. I don't expect testing to
be bug free, but I suppose there should be some effort to fix bugs that
will screw up users without technical skill.
> G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away
> Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
> email@example.com | -- Philip K. Dick
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |