Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
I don't think so. Dinstall would reject any new upstream release.
Approvals would only apply to t-p-u just like it is done
currently.
> 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.
I agree with you. It is too bad we'd have to lock down the archive,
but you don't manage a set of 900 volonteers the same way you manage
30 payed developers, methink.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: