Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-04 22:23 +0200]:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> > > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
> > > rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful in cases where neither the
> > > package in testing, not the package in unstable, can be used to fix a
> > > problem in rolling.
> > Adding this possibility is opening Pandora’s box. Once you allow this,
> > people start using packages that are neither in unstable nor in testing,
> > and they don’t help us working on our packages at all. This also adds an
> > extra burden on maintainers who want to use this feature.
> > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> > I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to
> > either t-p-u or unstable.
> Agreed, the entry point for rolling is clearly just unstable + a force
> hint. Why would you need to upload something to rolling that you
> couldn't make enter through unstable?
If more new upstream versions are uploaded to unstable (because they are
targeted at rolling), it raises the number of RC bugs needing to migrate
to testing through t-p-u. How would you ensure that they get enough
testing before entering testing?