> Packages do not go into testing until a minimum of 10 days after they > enter unstable, of course many other factors can keep them out as well, > including release critical bugs, build problems on other architectures, > or dependancies on packages that are not yet in testing. Now, if we look > at version 1.0-4's changelog, we see something truely amusing: > > adns (1.0-4) unstable; urgency=low > > * new upload since it does not show up in testing (Closes: #82710) > > -- Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:03:23 +0100 > > adns (1.0-3) unstable; urgency=low > > * closes bug #70945 (fixed upstream) > > -- Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:43:29 +0100 > > So when you filed this bug report on the 17th, adns version 1.0-3 had > been in unstable for about 10 days and was due to go into testing. Bernd > uploaded version 1.0-4 the next day (for no good reason). And 1.0-3 was > moved into testing right in the nick of time before 1.0-4 replaced it in > unstable.
7 Nov 2000 is quite a bit longer than 10 days from 18 Jan 2001. For whatever reason, adns was not in testing. This should fix it. In my mind, I was justified filing a wishlist bug. If there is a better mechanism, say so > So if you had filed your bug report one day earlier, Bernd's upload of -4 > would have actually managed to keep adns _out_ of testing for another 10 > days! > > Moral of the story: Read the update_execuses if you want to know why > something is not in testing, and uploads to force something into testing > cannot work and can be rather counterproductive. Ah. I was not aware of such a document. perhaps in the next weekly news? -- Jon Nelson \|/ ____ \|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] "@'/ ,. \`@" C and Python Programmer /_| \__/ |_\ Motorcycle Enthusiast \__U_/
