Re: delay of the full etch freeze
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:38:26PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > 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:
That it wasn't release-critical, so was lost under 200 other mails that
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.