Re: Upstream version freeze for Debian
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 09:06:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Basically it looks ok. What about the freeze period for the toolchain? I
> > think we usually suffer for a too early freeze of the glibc (it has been
> > frozen in July for Etch, even if it has been unblocked a lot of time
> > after). In my opinion, it would be better to freeze the upstream version
> > at that time and allow minor update until the main freeze.
> Ubuntu uses this technic and it's called UVF for Upstream Version Freeze.
> Most regressions come from new upstream version and only a small
> percentage come from maintainer changes.
I don't think the percentage is that small; packages with responsible
upstreams who make careful stable releases seem to be compensated for by
maintainers who happily introduce regressions of their own. ;)
We avoided having an upstream version freeze for etch simply because the
correlation between upstream version numbers and changes that didn't comply
with the freeze guidelines was a weak one. I think it's fine to have this
as a heuristic, but the version numbers really were not the major concern.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.