Re: Stetch goal: improvements to testing-proposed-updates / experimental?
On 13926 March 1977, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Do folks think those things are worth investigating further, and in
> particular, would ftpmaster and the release team be interested in
> reviewing/accepting patches along those lines or are there showstoppers
> with the ideas themselves?
Taking this first: Yes, ftpmasters are always interested in patches and
features for dak. We aren't always the fastest in reviewing them, but
eventually we will. ;)
> - RM approval should be required before packages get into
> testing-proposed-updates, rather than only for the testing-proposed-updates
> to testing step
That would either be a policy queue similar to how stable-NEW or some
backports suites work, or it gets splitted into two suites (not
neccessarily visible for the user) and britney gets to manage it.
Uploads to t-p-u end in t-p-u-foo and britney manages the
t-p-u-foo->t-p-u move, similar to unstable->testing.
> - uploads to t-p-u should have their bug fix claims checked (ie, that one
> of the bugs the uploads claims to fix is an RC bug that's present in
> testing; that all the bugs have already been fixed in an upload to unstable)
Thats either part of something like above and checked by an external
tool, or its getting fun in reliably do that (say, the bugs server
unreachable when dak queries it at upload time)
> - testing users should be encouraged to run apt-listbugs and include t-p-u
> in their sources.list
Sure, but I dont think this will gain much.
> - during the freeze, uploads to unstable that bump sonames should be held
> for RM review (or that will otherwise prevent new uploads of other packages
> to unstable from being suitable for promotion to testing)
The soname stuff, going through NEW, is partly done manually by the
ftpteam already.
> - remove uploads from t-p-u if an RC bug is found in them?
In many cases that RC bug would apply to testing too - and there might
be others existing in testing that got fixed with the upload (or why is
it in tpu?), and now we suddenly pull those fixes from the user, just
because there is one more bug found?
--
bye, Joerg
Reply to: