criteria for updating stable

[Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>]

Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:

> > Therefore I would modify the criteria for stable (as yet, not
> > officially stated anywhere AFAIK):
> > 
> >   * security fixes
> > 
> >   * critical bugs, i.e., problems which are causing significant
> >     headaches to a significant number of users, and can be fixed
> >     pretty easily (best example here is that the current stable
> >     kernel-image-2.0.36 on i386, and hence the boot-floppies, don't
> >     support aic7xxx adapters)
> 
> I tend to agree, however, I feel that the criterium needs to be more
> detailed.

What kind of detail would you want, exactly?

> >   * no new upstream versions (with possible exception if it's the only way
> >     to solve some of the above problems)
> 
> Security fixes might imply this.

I guess this clause should be:

  * avoid to the greatest extent possible the addition of new code,
    new features, etc.  Generally, this means "no new upstream
    releases", although in some cases, the above two points may only
    feasibly be accomplished with new upstream versions.

Where would all this info go, once we have it worked out?  One
possible, public location would be /cvs/webwml/english/releases/maint/
or some such...

I also think it would be a good idea to have a public checklist of the
packages in proposed-updates, including:

  * is it suitable for an update to stable?  I.e., does it meet the
    above criteria

  * is it fully ported?  If not, what ports are needed.  (Quinn-diff
    could probably be employed here ultimately)

--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>