Re: Dropping testing (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:39:10PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > "libraries transitioned" is a big point against testing:
> > Transitions of API-compatible libraries are a pain _only_ due to
> > testing. In unstable, such a transition can easily be done within a few
> > days.
> Which leaves one with the problem that the new library might break any or all
> of the depending packages, which testing would catch, while transitioning
> unstable might not. But I have to admit that I didn't follow debian
> development as closely as I do now in the times before testing and thus might
> be arguing against the wind.
This is possible (but see your own comment below).
The bigger problems from the point of view of users aren't transitions
(which usually go smooth - you simply have two versions of a library
installed) but breakages like accidential ABI changes without an so-name
change. These aren't necessarily caught be testing (except through the
RC bug count), and libtiff is a good example where such a usere-visible
problem made it into testing.
> Perhaps the best would be to prepare the transition beforehand in experimental
> and push the packages together into unstable, like GNOME and KDE did their
> respective last big updates? This also would be a step towards reducing
> dependency on work from the central teams.
That's a good idea and already done.
But this is independent of the question whether testing is present or
> Regards, David
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed