Re: Transition control

[Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>]

#include <hallo.h>
* Simon Richter [Mon, Oct 31 2005, 07:00:43PM]:
> Hi,
> 
> Eduard Bloch schrieb:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> How about doing that via the autobuilders and experimental? I've been
> thinking about it for some time, and my proposal would be (indentation

No, it is not the same thing. What you propose is simply declaring
Experimental as playground for transitions, with some mechanisms to
detect/guess possibly expected transitions and automate them. However I
cannot see how it is supposed to solve the underlying problems.
Basically it is the same method just splitted into the "brave unstable"
and the "transition merge area" in Experimental which OTOH makes the
real (integration) testing more complicated. It also gives Experimental
a new purpose, conflicting with the current one, so this "transition
playground" needs to be a separate branch.

What I suggested is forcing more sanity on the side of maintainers, a
simple mechanisms which forces the critical things to be thought trough
twice. That would be a solution between the two extremes:

 - all power to one package maintainer (current situation)
 - comaintainers requirement for every package (discussed here a while
   ago, that looked good at the first glance but would not be effective
   enough and create overhead at wrong places)

Eduard.

-- 
Zathras: Zathras is used to being beast of burden to other people's needs. Very
sad life... probably have very sad death, but at least there is symmetry.
                                                 -- B5 --