Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> Testing scripts are a gatekeeper against mistakes from unstable.
>> Upload debian-specific changes to unstable doesn't necessarily mean
>> there won't be side effects that shall not enter testing.
>
> Why not just leave freeze testing, and create an
> ultra-pending-release frozen candidate branch which is a gatekeeper
> against mistakes from testing. Freeze testing instead.
I thought freezing testing was planned. That's the incremental
freeze which is confusing.
>>> Am I missing something in your (somewhat nebulous) proposal?
>
>> Freezing unstable prevent people from uploading new upstream
>> releases which desynchronizes unstable from testing and forces
>> people to work with two distributions (and necessarily neglect one
>> of them).
>
> How does this actually make testing become releaseable sooner,
> if testing is actually frozen? freeze testing, leave unstable alone,
> and create as many harder-frozen-ready-to-release candidate variants
> of testing you want.
Again, I thought it was planned by RMs.
> See, you don't really need people in power to do this: just
> create a fake-testing somewhere, and a fake-frozen, and see if things
> actually come together sooner that way.
I fail to see how I can prove anything that way.
>> As soon as testing is strictly equal to unstable regarding package
>> versions, testing is roughly ready for release.
>
> This may take forever. However, frozen-testing and
> frozen-candidate may fugue towards equivalence asymptotically.
It depends of the criteria of equality. You don't necessarily
want to be that strict.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: