Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes, during the freeze I ran into trouble with OpenAFS because I had
>> too many different streams that I wanted to test at the same time. I
>> was using experimental for the upcoming 1.6 release, which I really
>> wanted to have available in Debian for people to test but which is a
>> huge technological change, and there were also new stable 1.4 releases
>> that (in a rolling model) should have gone into unstable and then into
>> rolling. But I was holding unstable free to handle point fixes for
>> testing.
> We do have testing-proposed-updates as a mechanism for getting updates
> into testing when unstable contains packages not suitable for release.
> Under these circumstances, wouldn't it have been better to upload the
> new 1.4 releases to unstable and use testing-proposed-updates for any
> critical issues that came up? Maybe we've simply become too
> conservative about keeping the unstable->testing path unblocked, when we
> should be relying more on t-p-u (which AFAICS, is more reliable now than
> it was when I was RM)?
I considered it, but I'm really worried about t-p-u not getting enough
testing. Maybe enough people are now using proposed-updates during freeze
testing that it's not an issue. The stuff going into stable is what needs
to be tested the most heavily; I wasn't as worried about the new 1.4
releases, since they were going to have plenty of time to be tested
anyway.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: