On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:06:07AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:36:47PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Why didn't you prevent bash 3.1-1 entering to testing if you knew > > > about this fucking regression? I really think bash 3.0 should be in > > > testing until a fix for this bug is found. > > Why? It was rated a 'normal' severity bug by the submitter, and > > nobody changed it. I think this is the correct severity. Since it > > isn't RC, it doesn't prevent testing propagation. Is there some > > reason why this is highly important to you? > > It's a regression. > I thing regressions should prevent > packages from entering testing > otherwise code can degrade if nobody fixes it. > I had to downgrade to 3.0 because of this regression. Regressions are bad, of course. But, whereas the regression was known before testing propogation, there were of course other changes made, which fixed other problems, and included other enhancements, such has possibly made bash more easily maintainable.
-- Clear skies, Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
