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

[Gianfranco Costamagna <locutusofborg@debian.org>]

Hi Adam,

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


I read them, but the title for the RFS was wrong, we were talking about unstable.

The RFS is targeting testing, that is impossible because that version is not even in unstable.

look at the mentors package
Version: 	4.7.2-0.1
Uploaded: 	2016-09-08 04:48
Source package: 	https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.7.2-0.1.dsc 
>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


mmm unstable and testing *are* affected by this, and the bug report on the upstream
mail list actually is from a person using testing/unstable :)

>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.

can you please see the above and answer back? I might have misread, but the RC is targeting
unstable, the package I sponsored is targeting unstable, the RC seems already in testing
and the new release is fixing that one.

Nobody told about backports, except for a wrong RFS template :)

(I might be wrong, please help me understanding where I did a mistake in case, I was confused
when I saw this RFS, and it is not clear even now :) )

thanks!

G.