[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 21 2008, 12:00:40AM]:
> Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> writes:
> > #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"
> I haven't said that, read again.

That's the general impression. I have also the impression that many
people assume that minor patches are ALWAYS much less dangerous than big
changes which is bluntly wrong and quite often the worst case happens
(remember OpenSSL). Some problems are better solved by a bigger rewrite
(by someone having a clue) and this is the case here.

> There's no release critical bug reported against the version in
> lenny. However, that version *has* had sufficient testing to assume that
> every serious bug should have been noticed until now. You propose to

Okay, simple question: how many RC bugs do you need to allow the push of
the Unstable version at the moment? I have one RC candidate (#506273),
lots of non-BTS user feedback to bugs in older version, and I got NO
user problem reports for the new version in the last weeks. I see
nothing to justify your risk concerns.


<Salz> jjFux: Ted hieß ja früher auch Walther
<Salz> winkiller: hm... es sind 8... die 7 kandidaten und NOTA
<Madkiss> Ist der jetzt eigentlich eine gespaltene Persönlichkeit, bei der aber
  beide Teile bekloppt sind?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: