Re: proposal: reopen unstable to development, may 1st
> sarge. t-p-u still cannot built it for all arches. So we have some
As one solution to this is, further in your proposal:
> b) upload it to t-p-u and manually make the N manual builds needed
> for the arches that don't yet build t-p-u
Which arches are currently not ready to t-p-u?
This seems important to know, just to check whether we will be able to
do all needed manual builds in that case.
> - We find a bad problem in rc3 after May 1st, which only affects sarge;
I think that the "revert unstable changes" solution is also still
possible...unless we have changes which are spread among several
packages (such as, maybe, partman design changes).
> So I think that resuming development in unstable is worth it, but I
> really want to hear the opinions of the release managers and others
> first.
On my "side" (i18n/l10n), the very short discussion we had with Frans
on IRC two days ago lead to the conclusion that the most invasive
change I'm planning ("opening the gates" of prospective languages) can
wait until Debconf.
As Frans suggested, giving this date (July 14th, for instance...:-))
as an objective to translators for these languages are OK.
Of course, if everything else is resumed before, I may end up
wondering whether we can also let prospective languages enter the
packages as well. All these need more testing and the earlier we let
them enter, the better they will be tested.
The other development change I'd like to see is localechooser
replacing lang+countrychoosers. This is not *very* invasive because we
can keep the replaced packages in life and first just start by
replacing them with localechooser in only one build (netboot for
instance, which is only used by d-i developers, with few exceptions).
So, IMHO, as long as we are sure that we can handle manual builds for
arches missing t-p-u, I think that resuming development is worth it.
Reply to: