Re: Update on "upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable" status
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 01:04:37PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 11:48:01AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > That's actually exactly the current state. However, it's more difficult
> > to get user testing of t-p-u uploads before they get into testing, so
> > it's not really something we want to rely on too much.
>
> Ah, last we tried this in february or so, testing-proposed-update was
> not being autobuilt, and the result was that it was not usable for
> debian-installer, but then maybe it has changed since then ?
t-p-u has been autobuilt for years. I certainly have a package which was
uploaded to t-p-u last September and autobuilt.
> If so, then this is the ideal method for solving the current problem,
> and we could quite well upload gnome 2.6 to experimental and use t-p-u
> for RC bug fixes in testing should they show up,
Since the autobuilders build against unstable, uploading GNOME 2.6 to
unstable affects lots of things; it's big enough that, at this stage, it
pretty much totally commits us to having GNOME 2.6 in sarge, even with
t-p-u. As such, it is very much the release team's responsibility to
ensure that the risk is as close to zero as can feasibly be managed.
Please, it will be a lot less work to demonstrate that GNOME 2.6 is
ready than to try to find hacky workarounds.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: