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


Groups > linux.debian.user > #173600

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

From Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.user
Subject Re: mws vs metar data, nsw 1, metar 0
Date 2016-10-19 17:30 +0200
Message-ID <su0Yz-33U-83@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <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> <su0OS-308-39@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:11:28PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>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.

I stand corrected. Thank you :)

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

-- 
For more information, please reread.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous 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