Re: Bits from the Stable Release Managers
On 11/29/2016 12:07 AM, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2016-11-27 20:42:26, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>> * The bug should be of severity "important" or higher
>
> Quick question: assuming all the other conditions are met (minimal patch,
> clean debdiff, etc.), this seems to discourage normal bugs fixing. Is
> that intentional (i.e. there must be significant breakage), or more
> about "we don't want random bugs fixed"?
>
There is for all intents and purposes no QA on proposed-updates, so
there has to be significant impact for the risk of changing anything to
be worth taking: we ship changes directly to our stable users so any
regression carries a pretty high cost. Sometimes we can take
lower-severity fixes along with an update, but on their own
normal-severity bug fixes are just not worth it.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: