Iain Lane [2012-06-05 17:09 +0100]: > Right. So the point of my mail is that I don't like to see FTBFSing > uploads to the development release which are the result of this "must be > fixed in the development release" policy.
Right, that's just a waste and pointless. > I think the SRU policy actually can be modified to make this the case; > change point 1 to indicate that, when the fix isn't available yet (this > means built and working), there should be a clear plan as to how it will > shortly become available. Sounds good to me as a policy amendment. > Perhaps all such bugs should be milestoned or otherwise tracked too so > the fix isn't lost. That's indeed what I used to do in such cases -- add an explicit dev release task (e. g. "quantal" right now), milestone it for e. g. alpha-2 or beta-1, and set it to "high". That way it appears on the RC bugs release radar, and the corresponding person will be hassled about the fix. Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- Ubuntu-release mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-release
