Re: Who checks for bugs fixed in unstable but not in sarge?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 04:14:40PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:51:56PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > That's OK, but please take your disagreement with that and your posts
> > that stem from this disagreement off this mailing list. Right now, it is
> > simply not in the least constructive.
> >
> > debian-release is not a discussion list.
>
> OK, no more discussion, but please answer the following question:
>
> How does the release team ensure that you won't release Debian 3.1 with
> known serious problems already fixed in unstable (e.g #237071 or the
> potential DoS attack in SpamAssassin)?
There are two release managers, equalling two human beings with maybe 10
to 20 hours of Debian-related time a day between us; we simply cannot
track the entire distribution by hand. If you want a bug fixed, you MUST
file it in the BTS with a suitable severity. If we are told about a bug
that needs to be fixed, we'll generally upgrade it to a suitable
severity. I don't know what this SpamAssassin bug is, but if it wasn't
filed in the BTS then it should be. The solution to "unfiled bug" is not
"come up with ways to track unfiled bugs" but "file the bug".
Jeroen and Joey have both been doing very good jobs of tracking RC bugs
that need fixed in testing and security advisories that need fixed in
testing respectively, for which I thank them. (To some extent these are
workarounds for the lack of version tracking, and yes, I should have had
the nerve to deploy that ages ago, sorry.) We'll be making heavy use of
both as well as the usual sources in making any final decision on
sarge's releasability.
In the meantime I ask that we be allowed to do our jobs with the limited
amount of Debian time we have rather than being drawn into long and
time-consuming mailing list discussions about how dreadful a job we're
doing.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: