On 02/11/2013 04:22 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > Having it marked RC may allow a patch into wheezy.
Marking it RC is only delaying the release, that's it. I have already fixed multiple bugs which were not marked as RC, and the release team accepted the changes. Even after Wheezy is released, it is possible to fix problems in the stable distribution. > Maybe even a small patch: A small patch is what we should all aim at. I'm sure the problem isn't so complicated, and that we can fix it. Of course, it would help if Mike and Jon were a bit more cooperative and were trying to fix the issue, but it seems they are quite busy these days (or maybe in holidays?). > > - updating the README > > - changing pif-reconfigure-ip to give an error if the user tries a > netmask that is not supported, e.g. > > "XCP only works on a Class C subnet with a netmask 255.255.255.0. Your > changes have not been applied. > See bug 695221 or the README file." Yeah, I think that is indeed a good idea to write this! > These things would be small fixes but would make the user's first > experience of XCP less frustrating > > The last thing you want is for people to get frustrated and start > thinking that they should try the Ubuntu version or the ISO installer: > http://www.xen.org/download/xcp/index_1.6.0.html#install Well, yes, I would like to have more Debian users, and that people use less XCP from the ISO installer (eg: CentOS based). However, the Ubuntu package of XCP is synced from Debian, so these are the exact same package (with only a possible delay in having the Ubuntu package). Nobody in Ubuntu works on the XCP packaging, the work is only been done by myself in Debian. >> Ultimately, this is the job of the maintainer of a given package to >> decide the seriousness of a bug. To me, setting it to either normal or >> important is exactly the same (eg: it is on my radar, and I really want >> to have it fix), and discussing the seriousness doesn't help. Discussing >> ways to fix it does. > > It's not quite the same, because the release team wouldn't accept a > patch/unblock request for a normal issue This statement is completely wrong. The criteria for the release team to accept changes is not the severity of a bug only. If we find a way to fix this problem, I'm quite sure that the release team will accept the patch, regardless of the severity set in the BTS. > I'm hoping that the fix for this might be quite trivial and therefore > acceptable to the release team. Yeah, that's more in line! If the fix is small, and even trivial, and easy to review for them (which is quite likely to be the case, considering that just fixing the db with an editor fixed it for you), then they will accept it. I'm also quite sure that they would accept any documentation change at this point of the release. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
