On Sat, 2013-10-05 at 21:21 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 05 oct 13, 19:08:10, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Package: release
Thankfully there isn't an actual package in the archive with that name, or the maintainers would probably be rather confused by the bug. > > Why did 4.0.2-6 migrate to testing after I uploaded 4.1.0-2 today? > > > > http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/postbooks.html It didn't. It migrated to testing _yesterday_; specifically, as a result of the 2200UTC britney run yesterday, which would then have become visible on mirrors as a result of today's 0152 dinstall. The script is run once a day, so will see packages that appeared in testing in the 0152 dinstall (from the 2200 britney run) and the 1352 dinstall (from the the 1000 britney run). > > 4.0.2-6 is not suitable for jessie, it doesn't give a good impression of > > the package and I would prefer that it is removed and that users wait > > for 4.1.0 to propagate It's been in testing for a couple of dinstalls already, and there's one more before the next britney run. We can indeed remove the package, but there's no way we can know if any testing user has installed it in the meantime. > > I had opened an RC bug against 4.0.2-6 to keep it from propagating, I > > only closed it after uploading 4.1.0-2 > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=725380 That bug was opened at 2105UTC yesterday. The RC bug list generated by the BTS for the relevant britney run was prepared at 1800UTC, so did not contain the bug. In general, a "this shouldn't migrate" bug probably wants filing before the package reaches 9/10 days. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
