Re: testing security (was Re: testing and no release schedule
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: testing security (was Re: testing and no release schedule
- From: Nathanael Nerode <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:00:32 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20040326004250.GI16746@fs.tum.de> <20040326004711.GO23358@flounder.net> <1080332905.777.10.camel@alpha> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> I always thought
>> that "best practice" was for maintainers to make new uploads to unstable
>> when there's a security update, which they do -- but *also* to make
>> security uploads to testing-proposed-updates. This doesn't seem to
>> actually be done very often, unfortunately, even by otherwise very
>> maintainers. :-P I'm not sure why -- maybe testing-proposed-updates
>> simply isn't well-known or well-understood? Or maybe it isn't processed
> If there are no dependency issues, Priority: high (or even "emergency",
> which doesn't seem to be that well-known either) works just as well.
Yeah; there often are dependency issues, of course.
Make sure your vote will count.