Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 07:15:52PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: >> On Mon, 08.02.2010 at 20:13:48 +0100, Marc Brockschmidt <h...@debian.org> >> wrote: >> > we wish to freeze only after the number of these bugs has dropped below >> > the mark of 300. As you can see on the usual overview pages [RC-Bugs], >> great decision, imho. > Well, it really depends *which* bug you consider, see for instance [1].
As Alexander pointed out in his blog post, we have made the experience that not being optimistic helps when trying to avoid too long freeze periods. A more pessimistic view of the current count shows ~475 open bugs at the moment, since there have been some mass bug filings in the past week... >> > Work towards fixing these bugs is greatly appreciated. We will use our >> > release superpowers to aggressively remove leaf packages from testing >> > (in fact, another round of removals happened on the weekend). >> What's the current policy about NMUs, then? > That's a good question, but also not-a-problem. Current *legacy* > guidelines (i.e. non-overridden by the Release Team) already allows you > to do very quick DELAYED/2 NMUs for RC bugs which have been outstanding > for a while [2]. I've been doing that for a while now, and IME it is > generally welcome by maintainers [3]. Thanks for your work. That's pretty much what the release team is asking people to do at the moment: Fix your own bugs, then check what you can do for packages you use, providing patches and/or NMUing if the maintainer can't do an upload. We are also more than happy to get pointed to good removal candidates or RC bug fixes that might be kicked into transitioning to testing. Thanks for your help, Marc -- BOFH #342: HTTPD Error 4004 : very old Intel cpu - insufficient processing power
pgpN2eUa1NgFn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
