Re: Weakening "from testing" requierement

[Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at>]

    Hi,

* Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> [2017-04-15 12:25:39 CEST]:
> The currently defined rules say that the package shall only be
> backported from Testing. However, Testing mutated to Frozen ATM.
> Any my gut feeling says that this is going to be like the Wheezy freeze
> (or even like the infamous Woody freeze that "never ended" and you ended
> up with 1.5 years old upstream versions released as "stable", ROTFL).

 Thanks for ridiculing our release process.  Please check the history of
the circumstances that ended in the delay of woody when you try to use
that as a reasoning.

> Therefore, can we probably relax that basic rule of backporting and
> allow packages to satisfy fewer requirements? Something like:
> 
>  * Package X has to be in Sid for min. 20 days without any new upstream specific bug repors
>  * Package revision X-Y has been in Sid for min. 10 days without new packaging related bug reports

 Erm, nope.  Not for jessie-backports anyway.  jessie-backports is to
host only packages from stretch.

 It might be relaxed for stretch-backports (and for
jessie-backports-sloppy), but that's not opened yet.  And I'm a bit torn
here: For the release we want fixes for stretch to go through unstable.
If we open stretch-backports and jessie-backports-sloppy that way we
would be actively working against that and send the impression that it's
fine to upload new packages to unstable that aren't targeted at stretch
-- and thus eliminating the preferred way to get fixes into stretch.

 So long,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |