problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
Currently any time I want to update a package for Lenny it has to go through
unstable and testing first.
If the Lenny freeze time was short this MIGHT be considered to be only a minor
obstacle to development. But as the freeze is getting longer and we have a
GR which could make it a lot longer this seems like a significant problem.
If I upload a significantly newer version to unstable (which I would like to
do for some of my packages as part of ongoing development that will lead to
Lenny+1) then AKAIK there is no way to put a minor update in Lenny (unless I
was to use an epoch change which would be horrible and might require changes
to several other packages).
I think that we need a way to upload to Lenny without involving unstable.
I don't think that my suggestion is anything new, it is the practice on every
other large software development project that I have seen which has been
reasonably well run.
While changes to the processes for uploading new packages are probably not
desirable when a freeze is starting, it seems that Lenny might be delayed for
a while. So if the GR on the Lenny release ends up actually changing
anything then I suggest that we make some changes to prevent stalling all
development.
Failing that I will create my own repository for unstable versions of my
packages - which of course won't give as good a result as most users of
Unstable won't get them.
--
russell@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog
Reply to: