Hi! On 17/07/13 21:49, Robert Millan wrote: > - Fast-track 9.1 by uploading it immediately to unstable, then upload > 9.2 (at least kernel) to experimental.
I would slightly prefer that to happen. Perhaps 9.1 can go into unstable right away. (After notifying debian-boot@ and -release@ perhaps?). I suspect 9.2 betas are more likely to cause problems than 9.1. And the release typically happen 1-2 months behind schedule. So we should probably get 9.1 into unstable first, especially as some people were waiting on some of the driver fixes it has. 9.1 probably should not migrate to testing too quickly - I may file a blocking RC bug on the grounds that it still has build-dependency on gcc-4.6, which we know is going away for the next Debian release. That would artificially give more time for testing it too. Testing 9.1 and choice of compilers is something I can and should be helping with as soon as I start to have spare time again... Also of note, security support is usually shorter for the even-numbered minor versions. We might even be considering a 9.3 kernel before the Jessie freeze. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51e842de.6090...@pyro.eu.org
