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

Re: Request for freeze exception: apt-cacher-ng

#include <hallo.h>
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [Sun, Sep 14 2008, 12:05:54AM]:
> Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> writes:
> > apt-cacher-ng was frozen in Lenny at the revision 0.2.2-1.
> > Unfortunatelly, this happened in the middle of a major rewrite, which I
> > consider almost finished with current Sid version.
> When we've frozen lenny, we planned to not include any more disruptive
> changes - a major rewrite is such a change we would like to avoid if
> possible. From what I can see in the BTS, the version currently in lenny
> works fine, so the risk of breaking anything by including an unfinished
> major rewrite seems unreaonsably high.

Wait a second, how can you think it's "just fine" having #495350
in the wild? And I have at least two more non-BTS-logged reports of the
same problem (*). The problem is not nice, apt just appears to go nuts
which is not something an end user should have to deal with. So no,
sorry, Lenny version is NOT fine and I hopped you would thrust my
judgement in the upstream role here.

And I wonder how can using a more stable Beta version (in Sid) be more
wise then an early Alpha version (in Lenny ATM)... And mean "less risk"
for a package without dependent packages.

And sorry for going ad hominem but that's just like a slap in my face.


(*) Most likely, it's a Heisenbug.
In der Wahl seiner Feinde kann der Mensch nicht vorsichtig genug sein.
		-- Oscar Wilde

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: