Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy
* Lucas Nussbaum [2011-05-02 09:20 +0200]:
> On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Also note that testing as is has not enough security support, and
> > read Carsten very good example of the PAM issues. How would CUT or
> > rolling address those?
> The PAM issue outlines how splitting the users and developers between
> two branches (unstable and testing post-freeze in the PAM case) causes
In my opinion it outlines how migration through barely used suites
(e.g., *-updates) significantly raises the number of buggy packages
entering a frozen testing.
The need to use those suites is mostly caused by uploading new upstream
versions to unstable even though they will never reach the suite that
currently is testing.
> [C] we could compromise. We could freeze rolling for 3 months, so that
> most of the stabilization work occurs with a single active branch,
> and then, for the final release preparation, fork 'frozen' off
> 'rolling', and unfreeze 'rolling'.
The mentioned PAM issue happened four months after freeze. Decreasing
the chances to catch critical bugs before they enter a frozen testing
does not seem to be the best idea, especially if it is done shortly
before we plan to release.
It would be great if we would find a clever way to be able to release
three months after freeze.
If we don't find a way to do so, we could:
* Add a non-selfcontained suite to upload non-experimental packages not
targeted at testing to. This would lower the number of packages
needing to go through testing-proposed-updates during freeze and
could also serve as entry point for rolling.
* Set up a dak instance for rolling and rolling-proposed-updates on
rolling.debian.net, announce it and see if it works.
* If it works, make rolling official.