[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status

[adding -gtk-gnome back in]

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 11:23:28PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Assembling GNOME 2.6 in experimental is more work than doing it in
> unstable.

Yes, this is absolutely true. Hopefully it won't remain true forever,
but be that as it may: large updates should be being done in experimental
first to make sure they work.

If you're having problems getting the necessary support, talk to the DPL,
and ask on -devel-announce for help.

> That argument doesn't work if we need packages for all (or nearly all)
> archs in experimental. [Especially as we need ~45 builds for
> experimental, an update for one package would be a looot easier to do]

You don't need to rebuild on all architectures for minor updates that
won't break anything. You should have enough judgement to be able to
tell when that is: the GNOME 2.4 -> 2.6 update isn't one of them, though.

> It's not as if a GNOME 2.6 upload to unstable would be something weird,
> it's what unstable is for. 

No, it's what experimental's for.

> We're not sure if it's perfect, but we need
> the bigger user-base and autobuilding to be sure if it's something to
> release with sarge. OTOH, we know that GNOME 2.4 is OK.

When you've done everything you can to ensure GNOME 2.6 is going to work
fine, then it's time to put it in unstable and see if you're right. You
have not yet done that.

> Please also think about the Debian release cycle. 

Please don't be insulting.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: