Bug#609737: marked as done (unblock: xorg-server/2:1.7.7-11)
Your message dated Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:27:08 +0000
with message-id <1294867628.9806.747.camel@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#609737: unblock: xorg-server/2:1.7.7-11
has caused the Debian Bug report #609737,
regarding unblock: xorg-server/2:1.7.7-11
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
609737: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609737
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock
Please bump age-days and possibly unblock package xorg-server
I merged the last stable bugfixes pushed upstream by Julien, and
switched my X to that version, with no apparent regression up to now. I
also ran a full d-i run with that version on i386/kvm, which worked fine
as well.
Of course, since we have several bugfixes, we could also get some
regression, so it looks reasonable to bump age-days to 15 (maybe more?),
to make sure it's properly tested. You may also consider only letting it
in for r1.
age-days 15 xorg-server/2:1.7.7-11
unblock xorg-server/2:1.7.7-11
Thanks, and happy releasing.
(-boot@ cc'd since it ships xserver-xorg-core-udeb; -x@ as well in case
anyone wants to jump in and add some words.)
KiBi.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 02:55 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Please bump age-days and possibly unblock package xorg-server
>
> I merged the last stable bugfixes pushed upstream by Julien, and
> switched my X to that version, with no apparent regression up to now. I
> also ran a full d-i run with that version on i386/kvm, which worked fine
> as well.
>
> Of course, since we have several bugfixes, we could also get some
> regression, so it looks reasonable to bump age-days to 15 (maybe more?),
> to make sure it's properly tested. You may also consider only letting it
> in for r1.
As Julien mentioned on IRC, we'd rather not be ageing things longer in
unstable at the moment; rather the opposite in many cases. :-)
If you (collectively) aren't comfortable enough with the fixes right now
that we could get them in to testing without much delay, then I think it
would be better to get them some more testing and look at them again for
6.0.1.
Thanks,
Adam
--- End Message ---
Reply to: