[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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


[1] http://master.debian.org/~wakkerma/bugs/

Reply to: