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

Re: fixing in oldstable before unstable (was Re: Wheezy update of tre?)


2016-10-20 18:31 GMT+02:00 Markus Koschany <apo@debian.org>:
> On 20.10.2016 17:15, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:52:07PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
>>> Fixing bugs in unstable or any other suite in Debian is not a part of
>>> Wheezy LTS.
>> yes, but it should be! That was entirely the point of my mail.
> Yes, I got that. And my point was that it should not be mandatory.

I think it would be a good approach to file bugs against unstable, offer
help in updating the version and if we don't get a response NMU the
affected package in unstable according to NMU rules.

>> Of course it's more work and of course it might be difficult.
> It's not just about "more work", it is mainly about how you define the
> scope of a long term support release. We have paid and unpaid
> contributors. You can't force volunteers to work on something. By
> declaring it mandatory to fix bugs in unstable, you increase their
> workload and make it less likely that someone will fix a bug in Wheezy LTS.

I think we are close to be able to handle the Wheezy issues in a
reasonable time thus if keep Wheezy the highest priority, then LTS's
quality wouldn't suffer.

> As for paid contributors: They are paid to keep Wheezy secure and to
> support users of this distribution. Of course you can extend the scope
> of Wheezy LTS to unstable but then you need to ask all involved parties,
> especially the sponsors, if they agree with this change. You get paid
> for repairing my car if you repair my other car too, just doesn't work.

I would ask our sponsors, too. I think extending the scope of the LTS
project to helping with security issues in perfectly reasonable, since
stable will sooner or later become oldstable then LTS, unstable will
become stable thus the quality of LTS would also gain from that work.

I would also make an exception, when a package is not used by
sponsors (and probably is widely used) we should not spend too much
time on fixing unstable to avoid keeping insecure and obsolete packages
in testing.


>> But if it's not been done, the fix might get lost and your work was void.
> Why would the work get lost? The patch for Wheezy won't vanish and a fix
> for unstable is often a totally different issue.

Reply to: