Re: unstable/experimental freeze policy
Hi Sascha,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:01:26AM +0000, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> > You always need to outweight policy with sane reasons / common sense.
> > If you think GenomeTools and its dependencies will pretty surely not
> > feature any RC bug we will probably not need to keep new versions out of
> > unstable. But how can you surely know this?
>
> Well, I cannot prove it... but as there is currently only one package
> depending on it and I'm both its upstream author and maintainer, I think
> I'm fairly sure ;)
There is no reason to assume that RC bugs can only occure in upstream
code. There are a lot of chances that packaging issues and cross
package problems occure even if the upstream code is perfectly fine.
> > I think by waiting a certain time to see whether some QA tools have
> > run once or twice which is probably in a one month time frame.
>
> Oh, I didn't know these tools also run on experimental. In this case I
> completely agree!
Well, this is a misunderstanding. The QA tools are running on testing
and unstable and I would wait a bit to be sure that several runs will
not show anything problematic. If this is the case we could think about
"violating" freeze policy and upload to unstable.
> > So if you are sure the Debian import Freeze for Ubuntu will be Feb
> > 2015 it might be the best compromise to upload GenomeTools (and its
> > dependencies) in mid January which should be sufficient to a) reach
> > Ubuntu and b) uncover any RC bugs in testing.
>
> Absolutely! The Ubuntu import freeze for vivid is on Feb 19th
> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VividVervet/ReleaseSchedule) so mid January
> definitely sounds good.
So we can agree upon uploading mid January (latest at our sprint :-)).
See you
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: