On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joey Hess: > > I think we've taken this "security bugs arn't fixed in testing as well > > as in stable" thing as gospel a little too long without verifying it > > lately. I've been checking and if testing is lagging stable at all, it's > > doing so by a much smaller amount than we've traditionally thought. > I think that's because of the pending release, in particular frozen > base packages, and not representative for the whole release cycle. > If a switch to a new upstream version of libc runs into problems, > testing and unstable will diverge again, maybe for weeks or months. > testing-security intends to solve this, though. If a switch to a new upstream version of libc runs into these kinds of problems again in unstable, we aren't learning from our mistakes, and it's questionable whether any amount of strategizing will put is in a position to do time-based releases. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature