[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Transition control (was: Transition time: KDE, JACK, arts, sablotron, unixodbc, net-snmp, php)

#include <hallo.h>
* Christoph Berg [Mon, Oct 31 2005, 03:04:53PM]:
> Re: Aurelien Jarno in <43661C90.2080701@aurel32.net>
> > So I would like to propose to drop testing during a limited period of 
> > time (let's say 4 months) after the release, to have the time to make 
> > all the necessary big transitions.
> Isn't that what has effectively happened? Now unstable is in shape,
> and testing will be updated from it.

Yep. What about another crazy idea... why not check the expected impact
from a certain package update before a package has been accepted in
_Unstable_? So katie could just veto a version change automaticaly
before it too much mess is created, even (or especially) in Unstable. 

This opens few new questions:

1) do we have ressources to do a such thing at all? (memory

2) who would control this system and how?
I imagine a "simple" permissions scheme:

a) release team could set absolute constraints
b) normal package needs a second approval from another person if it
going to change the state of more than one package. Two
approvals for >> 6 packages, 3 for >> 36 packages, etc. (or something
like that). And maybe this approvals would need to come from dependent

I think this colaborative policy _could_ establish a more reliable chain
of responsibility and prevent things like the infamous "transition".


In the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: