Gustavo Franco wrote:
Hi Luk, On 6/12/07, Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:Gustavo Franco wrote: (...) > * Switch unstable (release) for not automatic updates They are only automatic as far as the Release Team wants them to be as explained earlier...I'm not writing about "automatic" transition from unstable to testing through scripts. It was about the Release file. It's pretty much the key of that proposal and why I've suggested remove experimental, because in a scenario that we switch unstable to not automatic, experimental will be redundant.
Ok, I misunderstood what you meant. Making unstable not automatic would mean less testing of individual versions in unstable AFAICS which is a bad thing IMHO.
> The benefit of the approach above from a RM point of view is that we will > have more eyeballs over testing and it doesn't mean that we will have less> people using unstable pieces.
I'm not at all sure that it means we won't have less people using unstable, even more every version that is uploaded to unstable...
(...)As a Release Team we are thinking about solutions to improve testing migration like using versioning instead of less RC bugs, better udeb handling, automateeasy hinting, ease library transitions etc. which would IMHO help CUT.Could you please write more about the versioning instead of less RC bugs idea?
It's only in it's planning stage, but would at least include RC bug versioning support in britney...
Cheers Luk