Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.user > #173599

Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0

From Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0
Date 2016-10-19 17:20 +0200
Message-ID <su0OS-308-39@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <stPTs-3zU-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <stXQZ-17w-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <stYk1-1iy-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <stZJ7-2hO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <stZSN-2nd-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 12:13, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Well, in theory, once bug 863347 is fixed, yes, it'll get released at 
> some point. The bug is marked as "grave" AND has a patch, so it 
> shouldn't be too hard to get it into the next release of Debian 
> (stretch). With regards to Jessie, well it's not a security-related 
> change so it probably wouldn't be released, but it may well be 
> back-ported, but I don't know what the policy is there (does someone 
> need to request the backport, for example?)

The policy is that we want to, and do fix grave bugs in stable (and even
in oldstable) when possible, yes.

That said, for it to happen at all, the maintainer needs to prepare and
thoroughly test the update, and file a bug requesting approval from the
stable release managers.  The procedure is in the developer's manual,
and "reportbug release.debian.org" knows about it, too.

AFAIK (and IME) *regression risk* and *impact* are the main reasons why
an update would be (or wouldn't be) considered suitable for stable or
oldstable.   I have no idea where people got the notion that we would
restrict stable updates to security fixes only, but it is incorrect.

-- 
  Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-10-19 05:40 +0200
  Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Peter Ludikovsky <peter@ludikovsky.name> - 2016-10-19 06:40 +0200
    Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-10-19 11:10 +0200
      Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-10-19 11:20 +0200
        Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-10-19 14:10 +0200
          Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-10-19 14:40 +0200
            Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-10-19 16:10 +0200
              Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-10-19 16:20 +0200
                Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-10-19 17:20 +0200
                Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0 Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-10-19 17:30 +0200

csiph-web