On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:03:53AM +0000, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > control: owner -1 ! > control: tags -1 pending > control: severity 836778 serious > Justification: I think data losses are considered serious RC bug in Debian
Actually, if you've read responses to this bug report: > >> > I am looking for a sponsor for an urgent NMU of "btrfs-progs". Upstream > >> > has marked this as an "urgent fix" < > >> > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Changelog#btrfs-progs-4.7.2_.28Sep_2016.29 > >> > >> > Package name : btrfs-progs > >> > Version : 4.7.1-1~bpo8+1 > >> > >> Except, you see, it's 4.7 and 4.7.1 which are the buggy versions, 4.6.1 is > >> unaffected. So you demand, with a grave severity, to overwrite a > >> known-good > >> version with one with a data loss bug. you'd see the only serious bug would be _introduced_ by the version the initial request in the NMU. I'm not sure what's a proper severity for a NMU that introduces (rather than fixes) a data loss bug should be but I believe that's way below RC. :รพ Only after my response Nicholas did amend it to point to 4.7.2. 4.7.2 is a partial revert; with the buggy code out of the way all that's left is a regular new upstream version, with minor fixes and improvements elsewhere and an experimental new major feature (not enabled by default). Thus, the NMU: * packages a new non-urgent upstream release * does a backport before it hit unstable, much less testing * over an active maintainer * despite prior complaints of said maintainer so I have some doubts it should have been uploaded. Meow! -- Second "wet cat laying down on a powered-on box-less SoC on the desk" close shave in a week. Protect your ARMs, folks!