On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 09:38:00PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> When I do my release work, I have certain tools, and decisions about how
> to use them. One of these tools is britney, and another is the possibility
> of saying that certain bugs will not stop the release from happening.
<snip>
> Unstable is also "Debian", you know.)
I found these arguments actually really convincing. So, to the GR
proposers, beware of how do you propose it, because I would have
really hard time understanding a GR that simply asks for not
*releasing* stuff which we continue *distributing* in some of our
suites (i.e., unstable). Why should the treatment be different?
... and if it is *not* different, why should be the release managers
be considered responsible for it? They "just" decide (and kudos for
all their hard work, BTW) if something which is already in Debian gets
released or not.
Cheers.
PS Note that I don't want yet to take part in judging the severity of
the issues, mostly because I'm still offline and I want to read the
bug logs. But I believe the points I've raised above are valid no
matter what is written in that bug logs.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right
uno zaino -- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature