Re: wheezy postmortem re rc bugfixing
On 09/05/13 at 13:20 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:55:03 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> define:not-so-important. I'm sure that'll be fun.
Given that:
* the "not-so-important" status would only be used to decide
that some packages can be "safely" removed from testing when they are
RC-buggy,
* the release team has authority on deciding what's inside testing
I think that the release team can decide on such criterias. Actually,
that's something the team already did during the wheezy freeze. I'm just
proposing to do that doing that earlier, with more advertised criterias.
For example, we could use the following rules:
* source packages with binary packages of priority 'standard',
'important', 'required' are "important"
* source packages building udebs are "important"
* source packages building binary packages installed on more than
5% of popcon-reporting packages (that's popcon > 7714 currently)
are "important"
* build-dependencies of "important" packages are "important"
A quick hack resulted in:
http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/important_packages.cgi
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-qa/udd.git;a=blob;f=web/cgi-bin/important_packages.cgi
Which gives 2567 such "important" packages.
Of the 963 RC bugs affecting sid currently, only 185 affect sid's
"important packages".
Lucas
Reply to: