On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 11:25:49 -0400, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > for the rest, I'd think that there is a very good chance that the > respective maintainers are going to fix them before they turn out to > be actual blockers of the transition. If they do, let's remove them > temporarily from testing. > > I mean, uploading libav10 to unstable will require many additional > sourceful uploads of package versions that are currently in > experimental, which will take some time by itself. I'd suggest let's > start with that. > So the fact that it'll require sourceful uploads of lots of packages with many different maintainers is actually a big part of what makes this painful for us. The easiest transitions are the ones where a rebuild is all that's necessary, and fewer people need to be involved to upload things at more or less the same time. Would a timeline like this work for you: - T: upload libav to unstable - T+0: upgrade all FTBFS bugs to serious severity, ask maintainers to move the updated packages from experimental to sid - T+1 day (approximately): libav is built on all archs in sid - T+1 week: libav maintainers (+ anyone else interested) start NMUing the remaining packages (without delay) - T+2 weeks (hopefully): everything is rebuilt and can move to testing ? For reference last time took 2 months. Cheers, Julien
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature