Re: Partial freeze?
Rereading what I wrote, I realize that I've contradicted myself from previous posts.
I don't think it is fair to maintainers of release critical packages, which have no
>wishlist bugs filed against them, to be precluded from uploading new packages.
However, the current state of these packages should be frozen, now.
I understand, some packages are not yet "feature-complete" -- i.e., boot-floppies.
These should be left unfrozen until they are ready, and then frozen. As soon as all
release critical packages are frozen, we should freeze everything else.
Mike Goldman wrote:
> I'd be in favor of doing this *now*, but I'm not sure if it can be enforced with
> current tools. If dinstall can be configured to selectively hold updates to
> certain packages, pending ftpmaster approval, while letting through others, let's
> do it. Even if it cannot be enforced, I think that maintainers of release
> critical packages should be asked to immediately refrain from any updates which do
> not fix important bugs, and nothing else.
>
> The alternative scenario, which is just absurd, is to keep our fingers crossed
> until the next "scheduled" freeze, hoping that we can actually do it, but
> realizing that it may be delayed again, and again.
Reply to: