Re: why should packages migrate to testing automatically
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 06:36:22PM -0500, Kamaraju Kusumanchi wrote:
> This might be nitpicking (sorry if it is), but I could not find the
> answer in google.
>
> I think it is a bad idea to allow packages to migrate to testing
> automatically. Sometimes a maintainer might want the packages to stay
> in unstable than in testing. A particular package might call for more
> attention from Sid users to expose its bugs...
>
> My personal opinion is that a package should migrate only upon the
> consent of the maintainer.
>
> Adv:-
> 1) Testing will probably have less RC bugs than there are currently
> have -> improved stability in testing -> less work for the bug
> squashing party -> less release cycle.
> 2) Maintainers make better choices and they know when the package is
> ready for "testing".
> 3) Gives the users of sid sufficient time to find a bug and report it.
>
> Dis adv:-
> 1) Updates to testing might be slower.
>
> What do others think?
>
> raju
>
The rules for moving packages from unstable to testing are described in
the debian developers reference (manual) section 5.13.2. I have not found
a rational for this rule set, but my impression is that Debian tries to
automate that which can be automated, but with controls and escapes.
A maintainer has the option of selecting an urgency level of high,
medium, or low, which hold the upload in unstable for 2, 5, or 10 days
respectively. I presume that a maintainer can fold into his decision
his own sense of how confident he is that the upload does not
introduce a subtle bug. Thus he might downgrade the urgency of a bug
fix if he feels maybe it needs some extra testing, even if it
addressing a rather critical security problem. But maybe not. Maybe a
bunch of broken systems is better than a bunch of compromised
systems. But this is just my speculation. I don't know the rational
that drove the Debian decision.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: