Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
On 30/04/11 at 17:24 +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Friday 29 April 2011 11:46:30 Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 29/04/11 at 10:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > 2. In the past there used to be two rather opposites use-cases of
> > > testing: some (luckely more than just the release team) see it as a tool
> > > to develop stable. Others see it (mostly) as a usable distribution.
> > > I'm unconvinced that splitting testing into rolling+testing will benefit
> > > both use cases. (And I think this is shared rather widely in this
> > > thread.)
> > I think that the proposal is to:
> > - rename 'testing' to 'rolling' to make it clear that it's usable as a
> > rolling release
> It is also possible that a 'rename' brings no more value, but a confusion to
> the users for unpredictable amount of time.
> > - add a new 'frozen' suite, used only during freezes, to prepare the
> > next stable release
> So, if I need to fix an RC bug during the freeze, I'll upload to unstable, then
> release managers wait for it to enter rolling and cherry-pick it from there;
> or do they cherry-pick directly from unstable, skipping rolling;
> or do they cherry-pick from as they find fit in a mixed fashion.
Why would it be the release team's responsibility to cherry-pick from
anywhere? It is the maintainer's responsibility to prepare packages that
are suitable for the next stable release. I don't see why this would