Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > Second, you fail to explain why your scheme is likely to do better
> > than what we have now. You could make the argument that your scheme
> > is better because it is diffirent and what we have now is clearly
> > broken. I wouldn't accept that argument because I don't think it is
> > strong enough.
>
> Yes, sorry, I missed this:
>
> 1. It should be clear when a package gets removed from testing and
> everyone should have a chance to fix the problems before a package gets
> removed.
>...
This is one thing I don't like at the way testing is currently handled:
Packages with RC bugs like armagetron or elastic are simply removed by the
release manager - without any warning. It will IMHO harm Debian as a whole
when applications some users are using will be missing from the next
stable release (some users will say: "What, you have over 5000 packages
but this popular application that was in potato is no longer in your
stable distribution?").
Since the Release-critical bug status [1] only lists RC bugs in packages
that are in testing this reduces the number of RC bugs - but is it really
the right way to reduce the number of packages in testing in such an
intransparent way?
That's one thing I propose to handle different in my proposal: Everyone
knows two weeks before a package might be removed the exact date when it
will be removed when the RC bugs aren't fixed.
ObBug: 101498
cu
Adrian
[1] http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/bugs/
Reply to: