Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 12:06:30AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> When the maintainer Martin Stransky submitted the update he could
> have chosen to set the stable karma threshold to 1 or 2. Then the
> process of pushing the update to stable would have started
> automatically as soon as the critical path requirement was
> fulfilled. But since Martin left the
That's not necessarily good either. A bad update intended to fix a
critical security problem can be worse than the issue it was meant to
fix.
To be clear, I didn't say that it would have been good. I merely
explained that it was Martin's choice, not a policy.
Björn Persson