Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 14:41:45 -0800, Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> JÃrÃme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Quoting Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>>> > BTW, Miles, I have prepared a package dedicated at Emacs CVS >>>> > snapshots. What distribution do you think it would fit the >>>> > best?: >>>> > - unstable >>>> > - experimental >>>> > - none of the above, a stagging area would be better >>>> >>>> Keep in mind that anything uploaded to unstable really should be >>>> fit for a stable Debian release (IMO anyway). >>> >>> RC bugs prevent packages to enter testing. > >> And that's an ugly kludge that should be used minimally and only >> temporarily (again IMO). > > Eh? How's it a kludge when it is in the definition of the > Serious severity? > > serious > is a severe violation of Debian policy (that is, it violates a > "must" or "required" directive), or, in the package maintainer's > opinion, makes the package unsuitable for release. > > This severity is *designed* to allow packages to live in > unstable that should not yet go into testing.
Yes, but I don't think any package in unstable should ever be permanently not fit for testing (temporary unsuitability is normal and often unavoidable). A package should *never* have an RC bug open for a significant amount of time. If it does, it does not belong in unstable. All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a stable Debian release. -- Don't worry, it's *in*-flammable.
