Re: Implementing "testing" (was: Re: Potato now stable)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 10:17:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Automated Process?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> So pretty much all the policy is encoded in some "automated process"
> which updates testing. It works at the moment, basically as follows:
>
> 1. First, it loads up all the Sources and Packages files in
> testing and unstable.
> 2. It compares and contrasts them, working out what source
> packages are new in unstable.
> 3. For each of these new source packages it checks:
> a. That the package has had two weeks of testing,
> or it's a medium or high urgency package (and has
> had either one week, or three days of testing).
> b. That each binary has been recompiled for each arch
> it's on.
> c. That each binary has 0 RC bugs, or fewer than the
> testing version does [4].
> 4. It then collects the source packages that pass 3, and
> tries installing them in various combinations to see if the
> number of uninstallable packages in "testing" either drops
> or remains the same. If so, they're in. If not, they're not.
I'd just like to bring up the only point which really worries me about
all this... what is the incentive for people to run their machines on
'unstable'?
Because a package lying for 3 weeks in unstable says nothing about it
being bug-free if no one uses it... but if unstable is now going to be
really unstable, I can see lots of the people who currently use
'unstable' using 'testing' instead, satisfying their need for
bleeding-edge..
Jules
Reply to: