[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wheezy postmortem re rc bugfixing

On 09/05/13 at 08:32 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>   The execution of the time-based freeze might have failed.  Also,
> "testing" did not serving its purpose of "always being in (a
> near-)releasable state"[2] with its 500+ RC bugs at the start of the
> freeze was not ideal (either?).

I think that one problem is that our current workflows are based on the
illusion that all RC bugs are equal.

Our tools (e.g. http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi) should get better at
differenciating different kinds of RC bugs. For example:
- old RC bugs vs new RC bugs: experienced bug squashers should focus on
  the old RC bugs, not on the maybe-trivial-to-fix new RC bugs.
- RC bugs affecting popular/important packages vs RC bugs affecting
  minor packages (that we could remove without).
We should include such distinctions in the various graphs we use to
track progress.

Also, we should be more agressive at getting down the number of RC bugs
by automatically removing RC-buggy not-so-important packages. For
example, if we keep the current time-based freeze policy for jessie, we
could announce that all not-so-important RC-buggy packages will be
removed from testing on freeze date.


Reply to: