Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> writes:
> This way, when something is broken in testing and cannot be unbroken
> quickly, a maintainer who notices it could add (or make the people in
> charge add) the necessary packages to the override file. If, for a
> reason or another, an important bug fix or a security update doesnâ??t
> propagate to testing quickly enough, you can now just add it and the
> necessary dependencies to rolling, and people using it arenâ??t affected.
> Whenever the affected packages finally migrate to testing, the
> discrepancy between rolling and testing automatically disappears.
That sounds like a nice idea. Maybe call it hot-fix instead of rolling. :)
I would suggest one more thing though. Sometimes it is know that a
package breaks on upgrade and maybe even causes data loss. But the fix
might not be aparent or quick to implement. Maybe it would be nice if
one could then also remove or block a package so people won't upgrade to
the known bad version while the maintainer works on a fix.
Note: this would prbably require a full Packages file and people to only
add rolling to sources.list without also having testing.