Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Thu, 05 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:46:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Yeah, experimental is not really the good place. We really want in
> > rolling only packages where we have the assurance that they will land
> > in unstable the day after the release (so automatically and not with
> > a manual source upload).
> Isn't the ability to "copy" .changes file around suites a completely
> orthogonal problem?
Yes it is.
> I don't think it'd be reasonable to have scenarios in which I might have
> uploaded to one such suite 1.5 years ago and having that upload be
> scheduled for as long as that automatically to unstable the day after
> the release.
That's a problem only if you mix stuff in experimental. If you have a
repository dedicated to such updates that are supposed to end up in
unstable, it's no longer problematic (and I doubt we would have a freeze
of 1.5 year ;-)).
> Also, having the unstable-next suite you've mention would tight more the
> deployment of rolling to other project mechanisms, while the rest of the
> proposal enjoyed much more decoupling.
There's no reason why this unstable-next would be a requirement to start
rolling. It's just a suggestion of how to handle package updates during
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)