Hi, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-27 23:31]: > > If you feel it only justifies an urgency=medium upload, then that's > > what I would recommend. This means it probably won't make the > > freeze, since medium is 5 days and the 31st is 4 days from now, but > > those are the breaks. > > I think the 31st should apply to uploads to unstable rather than > testing. You basically came with your freeze announcement completely > out of the blue and said testing will freeze in 6 days, not giving > maintainers any chance at all to make normal uploads which take 10 > days to propogate to testing. This could lead to a) packages being > uploaded in a rush even tough they are not well tested and b) them
a problem I see *NOW* is that gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4 (libgcc1 where all new stuff is built against) were uploaded with urgency high and therefore could make the freeze but gtk+2.0 was some days before with _low_ and it is now only 3/10 days old. So every package in unstable uploaded since the gcc-3.4 upload to unstable - even if it is outside base and wants to get (RC-)bugs fixes - may not enter testing... I think there should be an exception for gcc-3.3/gcc-3.4... Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
