Re: Bug#82710: A version for testing, please.
> Packages do not go into testing until a minimum of 10 days after they
> enter unstable, of course many other factors can keep them out as well,
> including release critical bugs, build problems on other architectures,
> or dependancies on packages that are not yet in testing. Now, if we look
> at version 1.0-4's changelog, we see something truely amusing:
>
> adns (1.0-4) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * new upload since it does not show up in testing (Closes: #82710)
>
> -- Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@debian.org> Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:03:23 +0100
>
> adns (1.0-3) unstable; urgency=low
>
> * closes bug #70945 (fixed upstream)
>
> -- Bernd Eckenfels <ecki@debian.org> Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:43:29 +0100
>
> So when you filed this bug report on the 17th, adns version 1.0-3 had
> been in unstable for about 10 days and was due to go into testing. Bernd
> uploaded version 1.0-4 the next day (for no good reason). And 1.0-3 was
> moved into testing right in the nick of time before 1.0-4 replaced it in
> unstable.
7 Nov 2000 is quite a bit longer than 10 days from 18 Jan 2001.
For whatever reason, adns was not in testing. This should fix it.
In my mind, I was justified filing a wishlist bug.
If there is a better mechanism, say so
> So if you had filed your bug report one day earlier, Bernd's upload of -4
> would have actually managed to keep adns _out_ of testing for another 10
> days!
>
> Moral of the story: Read the update_execuses if you want to know why
> something is not in testing, and uploads to force something into testing
> cannot work and can be rather counterproductive.
Ah. I was not aware of such a document. perhaps in the next weekly news?
--
Jon Nelson \|/ ____ \|/
jnelson@securepipe.com "@'/ ,. \`@"
C and Python Programmer /_| \__/ |_\
Motorcycle Enthusiast \__U_/
Reply to: