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

Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> There are other possible changes but I want to discuss them separately
> because even without those changes, the testing without freeze is a
> worthwhile goal in itself.
> Still, since you seem to insist, here are ideas I'd like to investigate:
> - reduce the set of architectures required for migration to testing to
>   i386/amd64/armel and have buildd of other architectures prioritize
>   missing builds in testing over missing builds in unstable

> - be less strict and keep old binaries (and thus 2 versions of the same
>   source package) in testing. This applies in particular for libraries
>   going through SONAME changes and which can happily coexist during a
>   transition.
> - allow/encourage usage of t-p-u to rebuild unstable packages that are
>   ready to transition except for the fact that they are entangled in a
>   transition
> - have different level of RC bugs: there are RC bugs that are acceptable
>   in rolling that are not acceptable in stable, I'm thinking in particular
>   of FTBFS (and even more for FTBFS which affect non-common architectures)

I think these are interesting ideas, but they don't seem to be specific
to rolling; it seems they could be applied to testing just as well,
and indeed mostly you've phrased them as applying to testing.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: