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

Re: Development standards for unstable

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:49:08PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> >While the package might not be of the quality we strive to achieve within
> >Debian; if a bug is not release critical we consider the bug not to be
> >serious enough to impact the packages' releaseworthyness. This is by
> >definition. Even if there are many of those bugs, they appearently do not
> >prevent the core functionality from working.
> Well the definition is given in policy and a policy change (to be discussed)
> might change the definition of release critical.  So if we define that 
> numbers N_n normal bugs and N_i important bugs and  time spans T_n and
> T_i where a bug is completely unattended by the maintainer (e.i. no
> comments, no reason why not fixed, etc.) we can define a measure
>     X = Sum(N_n * T_n) + 2 * Sum(N_i * T_i)
> and if this measure excedes a certain limit we define this as RC
> critical.

Well it's nice in theory. The problem is that you have to set the
threshold high enough to exempt glibc and dpkg, and when you do that,
I have not yet found a metric that complains about any other packages
(I've tried two or three times to invent one).

Sure, you could just manually exclude those few big offenders, but if
you're going to do that then what's the point?

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: