Re: Bug#484129: release.debian.org: packages in tasks should be fixed in priority and removed in last resort after discussion
On 02/06/08 at 11:32 -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Mon June 2 2008 19:05:38 Luk Claes wrote:
> > Mike Bird wrote:
> > > A good idea but it doesn't go far enough. Personally I don't find
> > > d-i tasks to be any more important than "the packages I need", and
> > > I suspect millions of Debian users have equivalent opinions.
> > That's what rc-alert is for.
> You want millions of Debian users to install devscripts?
Millions of Debian users installing devscripts, running rc-alert, and
fixing RC bugs on packages they use? Sure we want that! :-)
> > > Artificially lowering the RC count in Testing is not always
> > > preferential to keeping Testing in a state amenable to testing.
> > You say yourself that it's not artificially as RC bugs in "new" packages
> > don't get that easily in testing anymore...
> Removing long-standing packages and stigmatizing them as "new" in order
> to keep the RC count down is artificial because such packages are not
> new. It should only be done very late in the release process if the
> packages are too late to be fixed for the next release.
> You may regard the process as some kind of perverse incentive to DDs but
> the direct consequences of Testing missing long-standing packages is to
> make Testing unfriendly to newbies, annoying for experienced users, hence
> less valuable for testing Debian, hence less valuable for improving Debian.
See it the other way around: it shows testing the way stable could be if
nothing is done. I'm all for removing buggy packages early in the
release cycle: it makes it less likely that we release without a package
that many users need, because it was removed too late in the release
cycle, and it allow bug fixers to focus on bugs that we really,
absolutely need to fix to be able to release.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| email@example.com http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |