Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:25:11PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > The crucial bit that many miss is that new packages don't move into > > > testing unless they've sat in unstable with no new bug reports for 10 > > > days (I think). > > > > Or 5 days (urgency=medium in changelog). > > Or 2 days (urgency=high). > > Or 1 day if it's a bad enough problem (urgency=emergency). > > thanks Joey. > > In your opinion, am I right in my assessment that testing is more > likely to be in an unusable state for longer than sid? (at least at > the package, not system, level)?
No, I don't think so. If a package has a bug that makes it unusable, then a) Someone will generally notice a bug in the two weeks before that buggy package gets into testing, and file a RC bug to keep it out. b) If a bug that makes a package unusable does get into testing, it can be fixed in 2 days in most cases. c) The graph of release critical bugs[1] currently shows 1750 in unstable, and only 571 of those affect testing. (658 of them affect *stable*). http://bugs.debian.org/release-critical/ -- see shy jo [1] Not all of which actually make the package unusable for users, but many of them do.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
