Re: "Automatic" backports
On 09/29/2011 10:43 PM, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
> There is also some benefit to allowing a package to hit testing in advance of
> backporting it. At least glaring "will not install", "breaks system",
> or "does not run as packaged" would stand a chance of getting caught before
> being pushed to backports.
> In fact, it might be a good idea to formalize the requirement, i.e. "Package
> must have been available for download in testing for 72 hours prior to the
> backport being available".
> We know there will be bugs in testing packages. If this were not the case,
> we wouldn't have the testing structure and policy.
Well, sometimes, a package that works in Testing, after a while, doesn't
work because of the dependencies evolving. That doesn't mean that the
backport wont work, since Stable will continue to be the same. So with
your 72 days requirement, you are blocking some backports to ever be done!
Thomas Goirand (zigo)