On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:26:17PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> >Actually, if you've read responses to this bug report:
>
>
> I read them, but the title for the RFS was wrong, we were talking about
> unstable.
>
> The RFS is targeting testing, that is impossible because that version is not
> even in unstable.
>
> look at the mentors package
> Version: 4.7.2-0.1
> Uploaded: 2016-09-08 04:48
> Source package:
> https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/b/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs_4.7.2-0.1.dsc
>
> >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
>
>
> mmm unstable and testing *are* affected by this, and the bug report on the
> upstream
> mail list actually is from a person using testing/unstable :)
>
> >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.
>
> can you please see the above and answer back? I might have misread, but the
> RC is targeting
> unstable, the package I sponsored is targeting unstable, the RC seems already
> in testing
> and the new release is fixing that one.
>
> Nobody told about backports, except for a wrong RFS template :)
>
> (I might be wrong, please help me understanding where I did a mistake in
> case, I was confused
> when I saw this RFS, and it is not clear even now :) )
>
> thanks!
>
> G.
From now on, I will let urgent fixes "wait until tomorrow" when I read about
them before bed! Not for this package of course (except for the backport which
I'm responsible for), since Dmitri is no longer going to be low-NMU.
Yes, Gianfranco you're 100% right. I believe my three mistakes were: 1.
Somehow I used the wrong RFS template and failed to notice its inacuracies 2.
Missing colon after Closes 3. And I forgot to push to my github repo.
Clearly I need more practise...
Humble regards,
Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
