Raphael Hertzog wrote: > There are other possible changes but I want to discuss them separately > because even without those changes, the testing without freeze is a > worthwhile goal in itself. > > Still, since you seem to insist, here are ideas I'd like to investigate: > > - reduce the set of architectures required for migration to testing to > i386/amd64/armel and have buildd of other architectures prioritize > missing builds in testing over missing builds in unstable > - be less strict and keep old binaries (and thus 2 versions of the same > source package) in testing. This applies in particular for libraries > going through SONAME changes and which can happily coexist during a > transition. > > - allow/encourage usage of t-p-u to rebuild unstable packages that are > ready to transition except for the fact that they are entangled in a > transition > > - have different level of RC bugs: there are RC bugs that are acceptable > in rolling that are not acceptable in stable, I'm thinking in particular > of FTBFS (and even more for FTBFS which affect non-common architectures) I think these are interesting ideas, but they don't seem to be specific to rolling; it seems they could be applied to testing just as well, and indeed mostly you've phrased them as applying to testing. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature