On July 9, 2014 08:15:27 AM Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 01:03:49 -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > > That leaves two Boost versions 1.54 and 1.55, which made me realize that > > the transition tracker is too pessimistic. Right now 1.54 is considered > > "bad", but it shouldn't be. > > Why not? I thought the whole point was moving things from 1.54 to 1.55. No, I don't think so. In my view, the goal is to release with at most 2 boost versions. The reason for keeping multiple versions is precisely to avoid having to do hard transitions [1] and boost-defaults was proposed [2] to keep the sourceful uploads to a minimum. This had been working well (in my view) since 2009. Somewhere along the line the release team started demanding boost-defaults use the transition tracker. I don't quite understand why. But if we're going to use a tracker, IMHO the transition to track is AWAY from the oldest boost (1.49) to the two newer ones. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/02/msg00614.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2009/03/msg00147.html Regards, -Steve
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.