Re: delay of the full etch freeze
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:22:43PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> [Charles Plessy]
>> > The rationale is that the 8th is "old freeze deadline minus 10
>> > days", so it was not completely unreasonnable to take this day as
>> > the deadline for having new packages in Etch.
>> I find this completely unreasonable. If someone waited that late in
>> the release process before uploading a package they knew would have to
>> go through NEW, they can not expect the package to make it into Etch.
>> New packages should have had at least a few weeks in unstable to allow
>> problems to be detected before heading for testing.
>> So I would recommend against moving the freeze deadline to allow
>> packages in NEW to enter.
> Yes, this is my official position on the question (dunno about Andi's, I'm
> replying to email off-line at the moment and haven't checked with him, but I
> would guess his position is similar).
> The only packages in NEW that I'm inclined to worry about are those that fix
> release-critical bugs.
Was there a reason this was not said when I asked: