Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue
Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue"):
> So in my original mail, I proposed that new packages would get
> immediately accepted into unstable, but would still require a review
> before migrating to testing. I believe that it's an interesting compromise,
> because:
> - while in unstable, they would get tested by our regular QA tools, that
> are likely to find some of the issues ftpmasters would have found
> - it makes it possible for the maintainer to get early feedback from
> users, and to continue working on packaging reverse dependencies.
> - it's unstable, so even if it's severely broken, it's probably not a
> big deal. We have lots of packages in unstable that have been severely
> broken for years anyway.
> - it protects 'testing' (and our stable releases) from unreviewed
> packages.
Because we build everything on unstable, it does not protect testing
from .debs which were built using un-reviewed packages, does it ?
In general maybe we shouldn't be migrating X.deb if its build-info
says it was built using (a version of) Y which isn't in testing.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: