Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 15.07.2010, 23:10 +0200 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: > On 07/15/2010 10:49 PM, Kari Pahula wrote: > > Replying to debian-release too since they would have a thing or two to > > say about this. > > > > Thanks! > > A haskell transition isn't something we could describe as "a small > update", it would take at least two weeks to have it done. We prefer to not start such > a transition at this stage. The freeze is approaching and we are working > hard on getting *planned* transitions done in time. You should have raised > your voice a bit earlier I'm afraid. fair enough, I just wanted to have it discussed. > > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:08:55PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > >> As I can see it currently, the state of haskell in testing is quite > >> well. So if we’d upload ghc6-6.12.3 to unstable now and do _not_ make it > >> in testing in time, there is not much of a loss. The only possible > >> problem is if we do not make it to testing in time _and_ it turns out > >> that we have to fix bugs in testing; then we would have to use > >> testing-proposed-updates to fix those. > > > > t-p-u isn't made to finish half broken transitions. That was not my suggestion. I was saying that if unstable is in a not releasable state and the packages in testing require a fix (not related to any transition), we would have to go via t-p-u – that would have been a correct use of t-p-u, right? Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part