Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 6/12/07, Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> * Switch unstable (release) for not automatic updates
They are only automatic as far as the Release Team wants them to be as
I'm not writing about "automatic" transition from unstable to testing
through scripts. It was about the Release file. It's pretty much the
key of that proposal and why I've suggested remove experimental,
because in a scenario that we switch unstable to not automatic,
experimental will be redundant.
>  = This warning should contain the hint for contributors switch from
> unstable to testing and those who want to pick unstable stuff do like
> we do today with experimental.
> The benefit of the approach above from a RM point of view is that we will
> have more eyeballs over testing and it doesn't mean that we will have less
> people using unstable pieces.
This might be better solved by CUT IMHO.
Probably, but the "remove experimental" and CUT proposals could be
implemented at the same time.
As a Release Team we are thinking about solutions to improve testing migration
like using versioning instead of less RC bugs, better udeb handling, automate
easy hinting, ease library transitions etc. which would IMHO help CUT.
Could you please write more about the versioning instead of less RC bugs idea?