Yves-Alexis Perez <cor...@debian.org> writes: > On 25/08/2010 10:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Uploading new versions of leaf software isn't *as* big of a disaster, >> but it does mean that updates to that software that should go into >> testing can't go through the normal testing process and have to go >> through testing-proposed-updates, which is way riskier. This isn't >> good. So for anything that's releasing with squeeze, please upload any >> subsequent versions *not* aimed at squeeze to experimental instead. > Hmhm, out of curiosity, why is t-p-u “way riskier”. Mostly because there isn't any large pool of systems using t-p-u the way there is for unstable, so the aging process where we get testing in unstable before migrating the package never happens. This means uploads to t-p-u could potentially break more conservative testing users, which is bad, and worse they're essentially going straight into a release candidate, so depending on timing we could release with bad bugs. It's always better to get the unstable shakedown where possible. > Would it be possible (at one point) to “fix” it and stop using unstable > as t-p-u and experimental as unstable when freeze is in action? We could try to get lots of people who normally use unstable to instead test testing plus t-p-u, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to do so. I for example don't want to switch my unstable systems to testing plus t-p-u for a variety of reasons. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k4nf8602....@windlord.stanford.edu
