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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 12, 2003

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:49:29PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, this points to a problem with the bug list as seen by the testing
> scripts.  update_excuses for gjdoc says 
>   gjdoc (source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc) is buggy! (1 > 0)
> which is clearly not true if the sarge version of the package has two RC
> bugs, no matter how you count.  (It should be non-buggy, 1 < 3; and even
> if the bug you describe existed, it would be 3 > 2, not 1 > 0.)

Uh, no, it's not "non-buggy" if it has RC bugs. If gjdoc has an RC bug,
it's not suitable for testing or release. Fix that now. The "less buggy"
stuff should be considered an optimisation, if it doesn't hit your package
when it should, the solution is to fix the RC bugs in your package.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: pgpoQN6E_PGvM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: