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

Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: NEW and RC bugs (Re: julia_1.0.0-1_amd64.changes REJECTED)"):
> still I think we should only stuff in unstable which is suited for
> testing. So while you have convinced me that it's good to have those
> packages in Debian I now think that experimental would be a fine place
> for those, but not unstable.

Well, of course people may disagree about whether the bugs are RC.
That seems to be happening in the case of julia.  In such a situation
having the package in unstable is probably better.  If the conclusion
is that the bugs are not RC, no new upload is needed.

In general, I think it can be sensible to have things in unstable
which are *intended for*, or *wanted in* testing, even if there are
known problems with it that prevent that right now.

And, finally, I don't think really it is ftpmaster's job to REJECT an
upload on the grounds that it should be in experimental rather than
unstable.  Unless it's an overrideable auto-REJECT of course.  As I
say, I'm a fan of those.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: