On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 08:42:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:47:02PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote: > > The time_t transition seems to be stalled due to issues on armel/armhf > > architecture. My understanding is, as long as this transition isn't over, > > uploaders of affected packages are discouraged to upload anything > > unrelated to this transition (to avoid any delays to get it through). > > > Do we have an updated rough idea for how long this transition will take? > > Is it in the range of day, weeks or months? I have no clue... > > Well, I think I should send an update about this probably, because I don't > think you should be discouraged from uploading right now. The source > packages with the renames have landed in unstable, and will take a while > (probably weeks) to get all of the build-dependency loops worked out and the > binNMUs all done. There's no real need to hold off on other uploads at this > point in the face of that, I don't expect it to significantly change the > timeline. That's great to hear. A more visible progress update would be greatly appreciated. > There may be some rare cases of pending transitions that would add to the > set of packages that need to migrate to testing all at once (though this > seems unlikely to me when there are already so many!), so those should still > be coordinated with the Release Team. It would be nice if the update included information on how to figure out whether one's packages are likely to fall into this "rare cases" bucket. Something like that might have provided in the past, but giving it greater visibility would help a lot IMO. -- Andrea Bolognani <eof@kiyuko.org> Resistance is futile, you will be garbage collected.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature