Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R
On 2013-04-02 13:37:59 -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Vincent Lefevre]
> > I disagree. If the freeze occurred only once (almost) all RC bugs
> > were fixed, there would be (almost) no delay. I suspect that the
> > length of the freeze is due to the fact that the freeze occurred
> > while too many RC bugs were already open.
>
> Agreed: in July 2012, many - too many - RC bugs were already open.
> So when, in your estimation, would have been a better time to freeze?
It depends on the rate these RC bugs are fixed. Only RC bugs affecting
testing should be considered here. The question is then: were there
many bugs affecting testing? If yes, why? Isn't the goal of unstable
to detect RC bugs (in particular) before packages enter testing? If
this fails too often, then something is wrong here.
Moreover, perhaps there should be different steps in the freeze.
Packages with a good history w.r.t. RC bugs (e.g. no RC bugs, or
RC bugs quickly fixed) should not be concerned by an initial freeze.
--
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: