On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:32:24PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Yes, this is my official position on the question (dunno about Andi's, I'm > > replying to email off-line at the moment and haven't checked with him, but I > > would guess his position is similar).
> > The only packages in NEW that I'm inclined to worry about are those that fix > > release-critical bugs. > I think this is unrealistic, because we cannot predict NEW's > behavior. It's true that we can't predict NEW's behavior, but that doesn't make it right to delay the freeze for non-RC bugfixes caught in NEW. The general shape of the etch release should be determined for months now, and we should be in the process of stabilizing for the release -- introducing new packages is definitely not "stabilizing", so I won't be heartbroken if packages not related to release-critical bugs don't make it through the queue in time for etch. > It doesn't follow that somebody "waited that late"; it may > well be instead that they did everything they could, and it was the > processing of NEW that waited a long time. According to http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html, the oldest package in NEW is 3 weeks old. 3 weeks ago was more than a full month after the original proposed base freeze date for etch[1]. Sorry, no, I'm not going to lose any sleep over such packages not making it into etch before the freeze. -- Steve Langa[Asek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/10/msg00004.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
