On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 18:57:06 +0100 Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 04:47:30PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > In the meanwhile, I see that something changed on the BTS side. > > But something still appears to be wrong. The RC bug count page [1] > > claims > > > > Number concerning the current stable release: 597 > > Number concerning the next release: 1190 > > > > which does not look right to me (there were about 500 RC bugs > > concerning the next release a few days ago, or am I recalling > > incorrectly?!?). > > that's because "concerning the next stable release" means testing. > Before yesterday all those RC-buggy packages were kept out of testing, > so the RC bug count for it was a lot lower.
So many RC bugs introduced into testing, due this BTS version tracking
issue?!?
Could this harm the release process?
I mean: a lot of RC-buggy package versions migrated into testing, when
they should have not. Many packages are now risking being auto-removed
from testing, if the RC bugs are not fixed quickly. And auto-removed
packages won't re-enter stretch, since the soft freeze will begin
shortly [2].
[2] on January, the 5th, unless I am misinterpreting the announce
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/12/msg00000.html
It seems a bit unfair that some packages won't be part of stretch, due
to a BTS glitch which happened during the last days before the soft
freeze.
What can be done about this unfortunate situation?
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp0dEdCMJq6k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
