Re: Please respect Freeze Policy
On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 10:00:38AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 4 décembre 2014, 07.46:25 Bart Martens a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:42:54AM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > Le mercredi, 3 décembre 2014, 10.20:32 W. Martin Borgert a écrit :
> > > > Would it be OK to abuse experimental for new upstreams during
> > > > freeze?
> > >
> > > during freezes, where unstable should only have changes targeted at
> > > testing (and therefore, currently, at jessie).
> >
> > I don't read that in the freeze policy. Do you?
>
> It's indeed not mentioned there,
OK, then let's not imagine a rule that isn't in there. :-)
> although the following paragraph is of
> interest:
>
> > If the version in unstable has significant changes that cannot be
> > reversed or stuck behind other packages that are not acceptable,
> > please contact the release team (i.e. file a bug) for doing your
> > upload to testing-proposed-updates. However, please remember that
> > stricter rules apply to testing-proposed-updates (see here for the
> > rules.)
That is from "how to get an unblock". And, the entire text of the freeze policy
is "of interest". :-)
>
> The November Bits from the release team [0] have a different phrasing
> too :
> [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00003.html
> > Uploads to unstable
> >
> > Since many updates (hopefully, the vast majority) will be via
> > unstable, changes there can be disruptive if they would be unsuitable
> > for Jessie.
> > Please be mindful of this, particularly if you maintain a library or
> > key package.
This phrasing fully corresponds to the freeze policy.
>
> My understanding of the situation is that the Release Team considers
> unstable to be the ante-chamber of testing,
Yes, this matches with the freeze policy.
> and that they expect it to
> only contain changes suitable for inclusion in the next stable release.
I thought that the freeze policy was meant to state what they expect. :-) It
seems you're overlooking the nuance on "disruptive" in the freeze policy.
>
> The problem with new upstream releases in unstable during the freeze is
> not these uploads /per se/,
I agree.
> but with what they "inflict" on related
> packages and on testing.
This is the "disruptive" aspect as mentioned in the freeze policy.
> As others have mentioned in this thread:
>
> * RC bugs discovered in the testing version of the package ?
> ↳ Needs to go through t-p-u
> * Package is used in Build-Depends of other packages ?
> ↳ Other packages need to go through t-p-u
The freeze policy states how and when to go via testing-proposed-updates.
>
> So, of course, the heart of the problem is the insufficient usage of t-
> p-u by users, leading to /de facto/ uploads straight to testing. But
> this isn't easily solved: we already have three major suites and
> documenting all the additional partial suites in ways that make users
> _want_ to use these (and report bugs they see) isn't easy.
That is, in my opinion a different problem. (I'm not rejecting this, on the
contrary, but I prefer to discuss this in a separate thread.)
The heart of the problem we're discussing here is that people with the best
intentions sometimes accidentally misread the freeze policy.
> Many of us
> developers are users of unstable: having this suite as close to testing
> as possible (especially during freezes) is _good_ for the quality of our
> stable releases.
This is not in the freeze policy. It's a preference of those developers using
unstable. (I'm not rejecting this, on the contrary, but I prefer to discuss
this in a separate thread.)
>
> I'd encourage the RT to push even more for an 'unstable' suite dedicated
> to the release process.
That's about changing the freeze policy, not about respecting the current
freeze policy. (I'm not rejecting this, on the contrary, but I prefer to
discuss this in a separate thread.)
> Development can perfectly "continue" in
> experimental.
That is suggested in the freeze policy if the uploads in unstable would be
disruptive.
So, Didier, I think that you bring up a few interesting additional aspects
certainly worth some debate (preferably in separate threads per aspect being
discussed), and that about respecting the freeze policy (the topic of this
thread) we should in my opinion all stick to the text of the freeze policy and
comply to it during the entire freeze.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: