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

Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh (hmh@debian.org) [041116 14:55]:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steinar H. Gunderson (sgunderson@bigfoot.com) [041116 12:30]:
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
> > > > the previous upload, the transfer to sarge is a bit delayed. I expect
> > > > that SA3 will go in one of these days, and it is _definitly_ on my
> > > > direct watch list.

> > > FWIW, we've run SA3 here (with a couple thousand users) in a woody backport
> > > for almost a week now, with no problems. This is of course not to say there
> > > is no bugs... :-)

> > This is definitly one of the good news, and together with the other good
> > news I was almost convinced to let SA3 through. However, I'm not too
> > sure if bug 279981 needs to be solved prior to SA3 going to sarge, and I
> > would like some feedback from the maintainer.
> IMHO it only *has* to be fixed in sarge if it affects upgrades from
> 2.20, which is in stable.  Otherwise, documentation on NEWS.Debian should be
> enough.

I agree with you that fixing is only required if this might be a problem
for upgrades from woody. As this bug report is quite young, I think the
best thing really is to give the maintainer enough time to take a look
at it, and decide whether this needs to be fixed first (and if, how) or

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: