Re: unstable/testing/[pending/frozen/]stable
On 09/22/2010 08:47 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:31:45AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>>> Then unstable/testing would roll further as usual
>>
>> How does a major, disruptive, transition get done?
>
> I think his proposal boils down to this: we *always* have unstable
> and testing to upload whatever we want and handle transitions when we
> like. Then, parallel to unstable/testing, there would be the
> pending/frozen suites to work on the release. Saying it a bit
> differently, we would *also* already be working on release+1 while
> release is being frozen. I kind of like the idea.
>
> To give an example with package names, I would already upload
> iceweasel 3.6 to unstable, thus breaking all xulrunner-dev reverse
> dependencies until they are fixed to use xulrunner 1.9.2, while
> keeping updates for iceweasel 3.5 in pending/frozen. It would also
> allow me to push iceweasel 4.0 betas to experimental, where they
> would be better suited than their current location, where they are
> not even built on non x86/x86-64.
>
It means that the Release Team will have to handle transitions in
unstable, migrations to testing, as well as the ongoing freeze in
"frozen". I don't think we have enough manpower for that. And, during a
freeze, we need each one to concentrate on fixing things (while there is
still experimental to test things). If we add a play-forever-suite, we
will loose some manpower without any doubt and it will make releases
harder to acheive, imho.
Besides, how de we merge things after a release? unstable would be
something quite different from released frozen. Some bugfixes might have
been applied only for frozen or pending, some other package will have
new versions in unstable (and their rev-deps rebuilt)… I think it could
be a nightmare to manage, imho.
Regards,
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
Reply to: