On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:26:17PM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > 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. From now on, I will let urgent fixes "wait until tomorrow" when I read about them before bed! Not for this package of course (except for the backport which I'm responsible for), since Dmitri is no longer going to be low-NMU. Yes, Gianfranco you're 100% right. I believe my three mistakes were: 1. Somehow I used the wrong RFS template and failed to notice its inacuracies 2. Missing colon after Closes 3. And I forgot to push to my github repo. Clearly I need more practise... Humble regards, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature