On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:46:41PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > Of course, these problems would all also apply to a frozen distribution > like we used to have. My recollection of those times is that the long > freezes we had back then had pretty similar effects on general > development - the win from testing is in theory that testing should be > in much better shape at any given moment than a random snapshot of > unstable would be so we should have much more chance of getting the > freeze over quickly. Reading this (and following the idea of not introducing new stuff or archives but releasing faster) it sounds as simple as "testing needs to be more strict and rigorous in accepting packages to be *indeed* always in a seriously better shape than unstable so that releases can be done with shorter freeze times", right? > I certainly agree that we should be looking at ways of reducing the > freeze time but I'm not sure that the freeze mechanism is an important > factor in this. In terms of reducing the freeze time I think things > like the availability of people willing to work on core packages is more > of a limiting factor than anything else. Yep, maybe it's not the freeze time to be improved but the time before that... But to be clear, I don't have any suggestions for new rules for packages to get into lenny, unfortunately. Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature