Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:36:00PM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Josh Triplett:
> > [Please CC me on replies.]
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Does it seem reasonable to attempt to introduce these new sections
> > before the release, so that these pieces of software in stable can
> > successfully work with upcoming sections that will appear in
> > testing/unstable/backports?
> > 
> > I'd be willing to write appropriate bug reports and patches for the
> > various packages listed in the mail above.  I (and ftpmaster) would like
> > to get input from the release team if they see negative effects on the
> > release from such a change.
> > 
> > - Josh Triplett
> > 
> 
> 
> Hi Josh,
> 
>   In summary: To my knowledge there are no issues, but please patch
>   tools before adding the sections.
> 
> Longer version: I think we should patch the tools first and /if/ we are
> in time before the release, we can add the sections.  To my knowledge,
> there are basically no ill effects of tools knowing sections that does
> not yet exist.

That's a good idea; thank you.  I'll start working on those patches.

If anyone has any objections to the creation of the two sections "rust"
and "javascript", please speak up now, as I plan to start writing
patches for various tools to recognize these sections.

> As the FTP masters can override sections of packages, I see no urgency
> for us to create the sections before the (most common) tools are ready
> for them.
> 
> The updates apply to packages already in testing, so the deadline is
> generally Feb 5th for these changes.

That seems completely feasible.

- Josh Triplett