On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the problems > > was that many updates were blocked by that, and once the freeze was > > over, unstable tended to become _very_ unstable, and took months to get > > back into shape. > > What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable freeze)?
My guess is that the release team would go insane having to approve every upload to unstable. Before you say it, it's much easier to do this sort of thing in Ubuntu because we have a small enough team that we don't have to lock down the archive during freezes, but instead just say "don't upload without approval". In Debian, we've seen many times (e.g. when trying to get large groups of interdependent packages into testing) that not all developers can be assumed to have read announcements or will agree with the procedure, and I think we could expect many unapproved uploads if we tried such an open procedure; so we'd have to lock down the archive using technical measures. The result of this is that the load on the Debian release team if we tried this would be significantly higher than the load on their Ubuntu counterparts, not even counting the order of magnitude increase in the number of packages involved. I doubt we'd be able to get much else done at all without increasing the size of the team to the point where effective coordination became impossible. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
