On 2013-04-02 15:23:18 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Vincent Lefevre, le Tue 02 Apr 2013 15:15:38 +0200, a écrit : > > On 2013-04-02 15:09:43 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Vincent Lefevre, le Tue 02 Apr 2013 14:52:35 +0200, a écrit : > > > > I disagree. If the freeze occurred only once (almost) all RC bugs > > > > were fixed, > > > > > > Problem is: until you freeze, new RC bugs keep getting introduced. > > > > But I would say, not many. > > Yes, many. See some other reply: the RC bug count only really goes down > during freezes.
But many packages don't have new RC bugs. They are still blocked by the freeze. I don't think that the status even of a big package like iceweasel is satisfactory. > > Moreover really new RC bugs are introduced on packages where > > upstream is active (since the version is new), so that they > > have a better chance to be fixed quickly. > > RC bugs are not only about upstream, it's also about packaging, > transitions, etc. It can easily become an intractable mess if things > keep getting changed. That's what the freeze it meant to avoid. They should normally be detected when the package is uploaded in unstable. And concerning transitions, you don't need a freeze to block them. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- 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/20130402150727.gg31...@xvii.vinc17.org