Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:25:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > > The crucial bit that many miss is that new packages don't move into
> > > testing unless they've sat in unstable with no new bug reports for 10
> > > days (I think).
> >
> > Or 5 days (urgency=medium in changelog).
> > Or 2 days (urgency=high).
> > Or 1 day if it's a bad enough problem (urgency=emergency).
>
> thanks Joey.
>
> In your opinion, am I right in my assessment that testing is more
> likely to be in an unusable state for longer than sid? (at least at
> the package, not system, level)?
No, I don't think so. If a package has a bug that makes it unusable,
then
a) Someone will generally notice a bug in the two weeks before that buggy
package gets into testing, and file a RC bug to keep it out.
b) If a bug that makes a package unusable does get into testing, it
can be fixed in 2 days in most cases.
c) The graph of release critical bugs[1] currently shows 1750 in unstable,
and only 571 of those affect testing. (658 of them affect *stable*).
http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/
--
see shy jo
[1] Not all of which actually make the package unusable for users, but
many of them do.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature