Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 07:48:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-05 07:46 +0200]:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > If more new upstream versions are uploaded to unstable (because they are
> > > targeted at rolling), it raises the number of RC bugs needing to migrate
> > > to testing through t-p-u. How would you ensure that they get enough
> > > testing before entering testing?
> >
> > That's the point, you don't target rolling, your goal is still to make
> > stuff migrate into testing, rolling is just the extra few packages
> > testing needs to fix the most important breakages that happen (e.g. your
> > PAM example, or large migrations where dependencies across libraries are
> > too loose and break testing, Joss said it happens to gnome quite a lot
> > e.g.).
>
> So rolling would principally also be frozen during testing's freeze,
> this is not what the name seems to imply.
>
> Unlike variants where rolling would really roll, this one does not
> require an additional pseudo-suite in Debian [1] and could be
> implemented on rolling.debian.net without convincing the release team
> and ftpmaster first.
There have been several DDs on -devel@ epressing concerns about the fact
that having something unfreezed during the freeze would divert the
attention from the release and many people don't want it to happen
(including me).
OTOH if Debian is more tested before the freeze thanks to rolling, it
can help to reduce the freeze length…
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Reply to: