Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
Cyril Brulebois <email@example.com> writes:
> Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org> (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
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 (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>