Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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
> > 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 do have testing-proposed-updates as a mechanism for getting updates into
testing when unstable contains packages not suitable for release. Under
these circumstances, wouldn't it have been better to upload the new 1.4
releases to unstable and use testing-proposed-updates for any critical
issues that came up? Maybe we've simply become too conservative about
keeping the unstable->testing path unblocked, when we should be relying more
on t-p-u (which AFAICS, is more reliable now than it was when I was RM)?
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/