On 11/29/2016 12:07 AM, Iustin Pop wrote: > On 2016-11-27 20:42:26, Adam D. Barratt wrote: >> * The bug should be of severity "important" or higher > > Quick question: assuming all the other conditions are met (minimal patch, > clean debdiff, etc.), this seems to discourage normal bugs fixing. Is > that intentional (i.e. there must be significant breakage), or more > about "we don't want random bugs fixed"? > There is for all intents and purposes no QA on proposed-updates, so there has to be significant impact for the risk of changing anything to be worth taking: we ship changes directly to our stable users so any regression carries a pretty high cost. Sometimes we can take lower-severity fixes along with an update, but on their own normal-severity bug fixes are just not worth it.
Cheers, Julien
