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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003



On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:18:49PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 11:32:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:00:13PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > There's certainly time to communicate with the Release Manager that
> > > the package should no longer be considered a removal candidate.
> > 
> > The way to do that is to fix all the release critical bugs filed against
> > the package, and upload to unstable.

> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:29:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing
> > > scripts.  update_excuses for gjdoc says 
> > >   gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)
> > > which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC
> > > bugs, no matter how you count.  (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
> > > if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)

> > Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug,
> > it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy"
> > stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package
> > when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package.

> Why are you arguing with one of your release deputies[1] on a public
> mailing list, instead of working out procedures as a group, and present
> coherent and consistent recommendations to the rest of the Project?

These seem like reasonable clarifications to me; I don't begrudge
Anthony's correcting my imprecise wordings (the first seemed implicit to
me, the second was an obvious imprecision on my part).  If I
under-emphasize the importance of actually fixing the RC bugs in the
process of trying to help fellow developers grasp the testing
propagation process, I'm ok with the occasional "and fix your RC bugs!"
-- that seems preferable to letting the questions go unaddressed, or
leave Anthony the only one who can answer them due to my incomplete
grasp of the above nuances.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpOGTz735RRQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: