Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Franco:
> On 6/12/07, Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:40, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > * What effect do you think removing experimental will have on
> > > > unstable? * How do you think it will have that effect?
> > > >
> > > I think it will have a positive effect if we add 'NotAutomatic: yes'
> > > into unstable release file.
> >
> > Are you also willing to promote uploading packages "that are quite
> > probably broken in some ways, but the maintainer still would like to see
> > tested" to unstable?
>
> Promote 'quite probably broken in some ways' stuff isn't the motto.
> Upload everything that we've in experimental actually seems to be more
> appropriate.
This means uploading of VCS snapshots to unstable, making all unstable
users to snapshot testers (see e.g. glibc 2.6 snapshot in experimental).
IMHO this is not a good idea. The only ways to workaround this are IMHO:
(A) Allow direct upload into testing. That means, testing users are not
longer protected against possible serious issues, that would have been
normally detected during 10-days-period in unstable. Or (B) rename such
packages, so you can have the "stable" and the "development" branch of a
package side-by-side in unstable. The latter may work sometimes, but it
can also be a horrible situation for the maintainer.
But in every case, you will not longer have a branch for testing of
packages, "that are quite probably broken in some ways, but the
maintainer still would like to see tested". The choice only is: Upload
such a package to replace a (very probably) stable and tested branch or
don't upload it at all.
I cannot see any advantage.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: