Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 12:51:33AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org> writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:51:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@madism.org> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> >> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >> >> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> >> >> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
> >> >> > rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful in cases where neither the
> >> >> > package in testing, not the package in unstable, can be used to fix a
> >> >> > problem in rolling.
> >> >>
> >> >> Adding this possibility is opening Pandora’s box. Once you allow this,
> >> >> people start using packages that are neither in unstable nor in testing,
> >> >> and they don’t help us working on our packages at all. This also adds an
> >> >> extra burden on maintainers who want to use this feature.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> >> >> I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to
> >> >> either t-p-u or unstable.
> >> >
> >> > Agreed, the entry point for rolling is clearly just unstable + a force
> >> > hint. Why would you need to upload something to rolling that you
> >> > couldn't make enter through unstable?
> >>
> >> Say you have just uploaded a new upstream release to unstable and then
> >> someone reports a RC bug against testing. Pushing this untested version
> >> into rolling isn't the right thing.
> >>
> >> Would a t-p-u upload get added to rolling quickly too in those cases?
> >> What if testing is frozen?
> >
> > I'd say let's see with the reality if it works or not. It's clear that
> > rolling will have RC bugs. The question is "will it be bearable or not"..
> > I think so. with "what if" discussions we'll go nowhere, that's why I'd
> > be in favor of a small experiment with the smallest amount of work to be
> > done (my "just use a britney to chose between unstable and testing and
> > nothing more" proposal), and see how well/bad that performs.
>
> Hell, why britney?
To compute something that is actually installable and maximizes the
installability count doh!
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: