Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * 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?
That's the point, you don't target rolling, your goal is still to make
stuff migrate into testing, rolling is just the extra few packages
testing needs to fix the most important breakages that happen (e.g. your
PAM example, or large migrations where dependencies across libraries are
too loose and break testing, Joss said it happens to gnome quite a lot
IOW to target rolling you target testing, IOW you help doing stable
stuff, isn't that nice?
·O· Pierre Habouzit