Re: move to britney2?
* Adam D. Barratt (email@example.com) [110430 23:49]:
> On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 23:35 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110430 23:24]:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:28:43PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >
> > > > > - be less strict and keep old binaries (and thus 2 versions of the same
> > > > > source package) in testing. This applies in particular for libraries
> > > > > going through SONAME changes and which can happily coexist during a
> > > > > transition.
> > >
> > > > That was already discussed and approved for testing I think in
> > > > Helsinki. However, it needs someone implementing code, and isn't as
> > > > easy as it looks like. Feel free to submit patches though.
> > >
> > > I guess that the continued need to run both britney1 and britney2 in
> > > parallel is somewhat of a barrier for submitting patches. Any ETA for
> > > switching to britney2?
> > Last I remember was "after the large transitions are done", which
> > would be ... now. And yes, that should happen.
> Yes, it should. I've been trying to make sure that the bugs we know
> about in b2 are documented in the BTS and fix them; the first part
> should at least be done now. I should also dig out my RFC mail on the
> switch which I think is sitting in my drafts somewhere.
I really think we should do the switch soon, then let both run for a
couple of months in parallel, and then start using the newer
b2-features. We will see some breakages, but we will do that anyways,
and at the current time in the release cycle seems it won't hurt us