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

Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation

On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 00:36:23 (CEST), Russ Allbery wrote:

> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> 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)?
> I considered it, but I'm really worried about t-p-u not getting enough
> testing.  Maybe enough people are now using proposed-updates during freeze
> testing that it's not an issue.  The stuff going into stable is what needs
> to be tested the most heavily; I wasn't as worried about the new 1.4
> releases, since they were going to have plenty of time to be tested
> anyway.

This anectode makes me wonder if t-p-u (or some suitable alias) should
be enabled by default.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

Reply to: