Re: sawfish/sawmill in woody?

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:

> Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> 
> > AFAICT, why are neither sawfish nor sawmill in woody?  The maintainer
> > (Christian Marillat) is being uncommunicative.
> 
> Isn't it time that you figured out how testing works? Have a look at
> 
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/

I didn't sit down one day and say "I'll run stable."  Instead, the
procedure for maintaining *woody* was changed, radically.  This was a
crazily foolish mistake to have made.  But that's water under the
bridge; it's way too late to fix it now.

So instead of assuming that I've ignored the obvious sources of
information, why not actually help answer the question?  I checked
update_excuses.  It says:

sawfish 0.38-6 (new) (optional) (low)
  Maintainer: Christian Marillat <marillat@debian.org>
  sawfish uploaded 53 days ago, out of date by 43 days!
  valid candidate (will be installed unless it's dependent upon other buggy pkgs)

So: what does "out of date" mean?  

Is it actually dependent on buggy packages, or is there some other
problem?  Is "out of date" a problem?