Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> What I see *now* is that the freezes during the last two and the current
> release are getting longer and longer (~1,5 months, ~4 months and for
> Lenny at least 5 months). For me this seems to be a serious problem we
> should not ignore. Important software is outdated in unstable and
> current hardware doesn't work anymore without resorting to grab packages
> from experimental or unofficial sources.
Like your "regression analysis" of the bug closure rates, this is a facile
analysis of the release process that shows you're lacking even a reasonable
amount of historical context for the past two releases, let alone going back
far enough to understand how the release process worked before testing was
instituted.
In particular, by looking only at the length of the full archive freeze, you
have ignored:
- the length of the release cycle as a whole
- the length of the base freeze
- the rate of RC bug churn - because the rate at which the RC bug count is
reduced != the rate at which RC bugs are closed
- the degree to which a freeze is effective at containing new RC bugs in
unstable where they don't impact the upcoming release
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: