On 13/06/07 at 11:19 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Lucas Nussbaum ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070612 23:17]: > > On 12/06/07 at 22:23 +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > NO! > > > > > > unstable is meant for packages that should be in the next stable release, > > > as such only packages that are in the maintainer's opinion ready to > > > migrate > > > to testing should be uploaded to unstable. > > > > Then shouldn't we have a more aggressive policy about removals from > > unstable, for packages that have failed to get into testing during the > > past n months ? > > We have that policy, just nobody who does the QA-bits needed to make > that happen.
What would be those QA bits ? It would be easy to get the list of packages that haven't reached testing in the n months (and have been in debian for more than n months). I could even work on that during debconf, but then, there's the problem of knowing who has the authority to remove packages from unstable. Such tasks don't get you a lot of karma points, so, if removals are not requested by someone with authority (release team or ftpmaster), this will probably result in a lot of flames. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
