Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
Pierre Habouzit <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 Ã 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a Ã©crit :
>> > 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 Pandoraâ??s box. Once you allow this,
>> people start using packages that are neither in unstable nor in testing,
>> and they donâ??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?
Say you have just uploaded a new upstream release to unstable and then
someone reports a RC bug against testing. Pushing this untested version
into rolling isn't the right thing.
Would a t-p-u upload get added to rolling quickly too in those cases?
What if testing is frozen?