Re: Proposal: Repository for fast-paced package backports

[Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>]

Hi Dominik,
I like the general direction, but there are some aspects of your proposal
which should be improved.

> Other ideas: fastlane, unsupported

Or maybe something like "fastpaced", after all this repo would not be
unsupported at all, the very point is to provide actual support after
all.

>  - The package must be maintained in unstable, like every other package.

Given the nature of the packages in "fastpaced", it's counterproductive
to mandate the same standards as for the standard archive, it rather makes
sense to relax some aspects.

E.g. we usually try to avoid embedded code copies. But for a package
like Gitlab that doesn't really add any value, if an embedded Ruby
package is affected, Gitlab upstream fixes it in their weekly release
anyway. And if not using the embedded code copies you'll end up with plenty of
dependencies which can no longer be fulfilled from stable as upstream
moves forward.

> I propose to add the volatile repository next to the backports
> repository, and treat it as part of backports.

I wouldn't tie this to backports at all, rather make it a separate
section of the archive and have some ACL mechanism to allow the DDs
maintaining a fastpaced package to grant access to it (similar to
#817285).

Cheers,
        Moritz