Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #173600
| 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 |
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
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