Re: scheduling ICU 4.2 transition

[Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>]

I sent the message below to debian-release 11 days ago requesting
permission to upload ICU 4.2.1 to unstable.  I understand and fully
support the new policy of getting advance permission and trying to
coordinate transitions, but I'm unsure of how long I should expect to
wait before receiving a response one way or the other.

The actual 4.2.1 differs from 4.2.1~rc1 in experimental by only one line
of code and that line is inside of an #ifdef that only runs on Windows,
so for our purposes, 4.2.1~rc1 in experimental is identical to 4.2.1.
I'd still like to go ahead and get the transition going, but as per
requests to debian-devel-announce, I intend to hold off my upload until
I get confirmation from debian-release.

Please cc me on any response as I am not subscribed to debian-release.
(I did check the archives for responses before reposting.)

Thanks for all you do to keep things moving.  Please see this message as
a gentle tug from someone who wants to cause as little disruption as
possible rather than as a complaint or criticism.

-- 
Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org>


Jay Berkenbilt <qjb@debian.org> wrote:

> I'd like to get a place in line for doing a transition to ICU 4.2.  I
> realize there are other transitions going on right now, but I'd be
> interested in an ETA.  I believe the ICU 4.0 transition worked just with
> binary NMUs, but I also seem to recall that it was forced into testing
> early.  Also, openoffice.org previously reported that it worked with
> 4.2.  In any case, I won't upload to unstable before I hear back from
> the release team.  I'll be uploading 4.2.1 to experimental in the mean
> time unless you say, "yeah, go ahead and upload to unstable". :-)