On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Andreas Barth wrote: > > Good. I just want to point out that "frozen" built on top on rolling > > (which is what we're proposing here) is different from "frozen" built on > > top of unstable (which is what we had before the introduction of testing). > > The main drawback for frozen was that there is now a suite with quite > some bad bugs which need to be fixed.
Yes, and testing was supposed to fix that and limit the scope of the problem. And it probably has although we have grown again since 2000 so even a small percentage of buggy packages makes for a big number of RC bugs. > And that we're lacking man power to fix that independend from unstable. It's not entirely independent from unstable, not all packages diverge from day 0. The percentage of divergent packages increases steadily. The shorter the freeze the more packages will be able to be fixed via unstable. That said, we're lacking man power to fix bugs, I don't think that it changes much whether the bug is fixed via unstable or via frozen. Once we are to the point where we have been able to fix a bug in unstable, it's usually not very difficult to fix it in frozen too (unless the fix is in a new upstream version, but that would not help in the current scheme either). The core problem with the "man power" is that a (small) set of maintainers are not taking care of their RC bugs with due diligence. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110430071417.gd19...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
