Re: releasing major library change to unstable without coordination
> It's not an either or.
>
> Generally, the Release Team should coordinate timing of transitions. New libraries should be staged in Experimental first. Maintainers of rdpends should be alerted to the impending transition so they can check if they are ready.
>
> Debian is developed by a team and we should work together to move things forward. Particularly for a big transition like numpy, we all need to work together to get the work done.
>
> It's true that breakage will happen in unstable. We shouldn't be afraid of it, but we should also work to keep it manageable.
let's not get hung up on the details of numpy; what if the package to
update is a small library, with say 20 rdeps, but one of them is llvm
or gcc or libreoffice, and maybe only for their doc. Are we really
asking the maintainer of that library to rebuild all the rdeps, which
can require considerable time, memory and disk space nor readily
available (we can assume the rdeps maintainers have figured out their
resource availability and so they'd be able to rebuild their packages
easily)?
and lets use once again numpy: 2 days ago i've uploaded 1.21.5 to
replace 1.21.4 in unstable. should i have instead uploaded to
experimental and asked the RT for a transition slot? how do i know if
a transition is required, in this and in all other cases, for all
packages? while only a patch release, there's a non-zero chance there
should be a regresion or an incompatible chance was released with it.
which can only be discovered by rdeps rebuild and so we go back to my
previous mail.
Regards,
--
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Reply to: