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

Bug#837040: RFS: btrfs-progs/4.7.1-1~bpo8+1 [RC NMU]



On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:03:53AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
> control: tags -1 pending
> control: severity 836778 serious
> Justification: I think data losses are considered serious RC bug in Debian

Actually, if you've read responses to this bug report:

> >> > I am looking for a sponsor for an urgent NMU of "btrfs-progs".  Upstream
> >> > has marked this as an "urgent fix" <
> >> > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Changelog#btrfs-progs-4.7.2_.28Sep_2016.29
> >> 
> >> > Package name    : btrfs-progs
> >> > Version         : 4.7.1-1~bpo8+1
> >> 
> >> Except, you see, it's 4.7 and 4.7.1 which are the buggy versions, 4.6.1 is
> >> unaffected.  So you demand, with a grave severity, to overwrite a known-good
> >> version with one with a data loss bug.

you'd see the only serious bug would be _introduced_ by the version the
initial request in the NMU.

I'm not sure what's a proper severity for a NMU that introduces (rather than
fixes) a data loss bug should be but I believe that's way below RC. :þ


Only after my response Nicholas did amend it to point to 4.7.2.  4.7.2 is a
partial revert; with the buggy code out of the way all that's left is a
regular new upstream version, with minor fixes and improvements elsewhere
and an experimental new major feature (not enabled by default).

Thus, the NMU:
* packages a new non-urgent upstream release
* does a backport before it hit unstable, much less testing
* over an active maintainer
* despite prior complaints of said maintainer
so I have some doubts it should have been uploaded.


Meow!
-- 
Second "wet cat laying down on a powered-on box-less SoC on the desk" close
shave in a week.  Protect your ARMs, folks!


Reply to: