Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On 28/04/11 at 18:04 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 28/04/2011 17:25, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 28/04/11 at 16:52 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> >> 1) At the beginning of the developement cycle, (with the new plan) you
> >> start from testing, and not the new stable. So, you don't start with a
> >> base that's rc-bug free, or at least, as polished as the new stable is.
> > That's true. But the counter-argument to that is that, since new
> > packages will get some testing in rolling, all the new and broken stuff
> > will not land in unstable at the same time, and we won't end up with 800
> "new rolling"? (and you seem to use "testing" in the next sentence).
> (I really think that we should forget about "rolling" for now… since it's
> confusing even for you)
No, I meant unstable. What happens currently is that most DDs hold off
work during the freeze, and then upload new and broken stuff shortly
after the release, leading to several concurrent transitions.
> > I agree that it's a problem. However:
> > - we are likely to get more "rolling"+"unstable" users than the current
> > "testing"+"sid" users, so "rolling" release will get more testing
> > until the freeze.
> "rolling release"? do you mean "rolling suite"?
Yes sorry (but that's the same thing)
> > - even at the beginning of a freeze, "frozen" is likely to be of
> > higher quality than "testing" at the beginning of a freeze. We might
> > encourage users to upgrade from stable on non-critical machines
> > earlier.
> at the beginning of a freeze, "frozen" is created from "rolling". How's
> that different from "testing"? That's based on the assumption that we will
> have more rolling users, more bug reporters, more… and poneys.
Could we try to stay on focus and constructive, and avoid bringing
poneys in the discussion?