Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
Hi Carsten,
A bit late on responding to your mails, but...
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:56:14AM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > So if we tell users to use this repository, we're going to have
> > > some users (I upgrade my servers to testing during the freeze and I
> > > would enable it if it was generally advised for beta-testers).
>
> The libpam-mount example was not a 100% fit because it went through
> testing-security and not through t-p-a. The segfaulting package
> migrated to testing on the 28th of November 2008. Just five months
> earlier the "Testing Security team" announced[1] on d-d-a that they
> provide nearly full security support (the kernel was missing at this
> time).
I'd say it's a very good fit for describing the type of problem; even if
it was t-s vs t-p-u, it's the same problem in terms of testing coverage.
Especially with software that's used in a wide variety of configurations
and environments, even what is seen as thorough review/testing on the
part of the maintainer could miss stuff like this.
> I doubt that generally advising to add t-p-a would significantly work
> out better than the testing-security announcement.
I'm thinking more and more that if we did do the "branch testing"
approach, it would need to be in tandem with changes to default
installation settings, "release upgrade" procedures, etc, to get more
people on board by default.
That said, I also think your discussion/suggestions regarding
"unstable-p-u" are really good. While it may not necessarily
solve the "rolling" needs, it could solve the non-release standstill
issue by providing something more useful than experimental.
As you might or might not know, I took out DEP-10 over the weekend, to
explore different ways that we could parallelize the release management,
and plan to explore the details/problems/benefits of both of these ideas
(branch testing / unstable-p-u). It would be awesome if I could get
some feedback/help from you along these lines.
sean
Reply to: