On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:22:18AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > 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. > Hello Eduard, Sorry for the delay in replying. With the number of changes in this, I'm afraid it cannot be reviewed for the lenny release. As you consider the version in testing currently to be "old and buggy", and we haven't released with apt-cacher-ng before, I'll be happy to file a removal hint should you so wish. Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li B345BDD3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature