Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:
> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the problems
> > was that many updates were blocked by that, and once the freeze was
> > over, unstable tended to become _very_ unstable, and took months to get
> > back into shape.
>
> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable freeze)?
My guess is that the release team would go insane having to approve
every upload to unstable.
Before you say it, it's much easier to do this sort of thing in Ubuntu
because we have a small enough team that we don't have to lock down the
archive during freezes, but instead just say "don't upload without
approval". In Debian, we've seen many times (e.g. when trying to get
large groups of interdependent packages into testing) that not all
developers can be assumed to have read announcements or will agree with
the procedure, and I think we could expect many unapproved uploads if we
tried such an open procedure; so we'd have to lock down the archive
using technical measures.
The result of this is that the load on the Debian release team if we
tried this would be significantly higher than the load on their Ubuntu
counterparts, not even counting the order of magnitude increase in the
number of packages involved. I doubt we'd be able to get much else done
at all without increasing the size of the team to the point where
effective coordination became impossible.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: