[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation

Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> writes:
> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> (05/05/2011):

>> I personally don't think uploading packages to experimental before it
>> is time for them to participate in transitions to testing and integrate
>> with the rest of the next stable distribution is abuse at all.  In fact
>> I wish people would do it more often.

> Being able to tell bug reporters “please check what happens with the X
> stack in experimental” (which had more or less latest upstream release
> candidates or releases), and closing with those versions; or forwarding
> upstream if bugs are still there, is something I find very interesting
> indeed.

Yes, during the freeze I ran into trouble with OpenAFS because I had too
many different streams that I wanted to test at the same time.  I was
using experimental for the upcoming 1.6 release, which I really wanted to
have available in Debian for people to test but which is a huge
technological change, and there were also new stable 1.4 releases that (in
a rolling model) should have gone into unstable and then into rolling.
But I was holding unstable free to handle point fixes for testing.

We have a ton of archives right now, and I'm hesitant to even hint at
adding another one, but it does sometimes feel like we have one too few.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: