Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 2013-04-02 15:23:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre, le Tue 02 Apr 2013 15:15:38 +0200, a écrit :
> > On 2013-04-02 15:09:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Vincent Lefevre, le Tue 02 Apr 2013 14:52:35 +0200, a écrit :
> > > > I disagree. If the freeze occurred only once (almost) all RC bugs
> > > > were fixed,
> > >
> > > Problem is: until you freeze, new RC bugs keep getting introduced.
> >
> > But I would say, not many.
>
> Yes, many. See some other reply: the RC bug count only really goes down
> during freezes.
But many packages don't have new RC bugs. They are still blocked
by the freeze.
I don't think that the status even of a big package like iceweasel
is satisfactory.
> > Moreover really new RC bugs are introduced on packages where
> > upstream is active (since the version is new), so that they
> > have a better chance to be fixed quickly.
>
> RC bugs are not only about upstream, it's also about packaging,
> transitions, etc. It can easily become an intractable mess if things
> keep getting changed. That's what the freeze it meant to avoid.
They should normally be detected when the package is uploaded in
unstable.
And concerning transitions, you don't need a freeze to block them.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Reply to: