Re: Backports upgrade policy (ButAutomaticUpdates:yes)
martin f krafft schrieb am Thursday, den 24. January 2013:
> also sprach Joerg Jaspert <email@example.com> [2013.01.24.2017 +1300]:
> > > And say that a year later 2.3 comes out and it's the bee's knees
> > > because it fully replaces 1.1 except that the configuration cannot
> > > be automatically migrated, and all the power users on #debian-devel
> > > persuade you to backport it, what do you do?
> > Backport it. Thats one of the points backports is for. I would actually
> > ask wth 2.2 wasn't backported before.
> Because 2.0 drops a feature you need and introduces some bugs. Also,
> the configuration needs a lot of manual work to migrate.</hypothetical>
> > > And yet, setting "ButAutomaticUpdates: yes" pretends that it's the
> > > other way around.
> > If you decide to install a backport - you do that. You decide to get
> > that most recent version. Which includes keeping it most recent.
> Except ever since backports became more and more popular, causing
> NotAutomatic to be set at some point in time due to popular demand,
> it's been such that you decided to get the backport and if you
> wanted to keep it recent, you had to do an additional step.
> Now you have to do the additional step to prevent that. Someone
> just changed it for no good reason. Both ways have pros and cons.
> Setting ButAutomaticUpdates certainly doesn't have enough pros to
> warrant this change, just like that. The way it was before does have
> a huge pro though: it's the way it's been for years. You know, never
> change a winning team…
the feature was introduced 08/2006 , which means is as old as backports without