Hi Andreas, On Sat, 30 Apr 2011, Andreas Barth wrote: > Actually, it worked quite well for both volatile and backports to > start as a non-official service. As well as building packages in > non-free. And lots of other stuff which was implemented. > > Why shouldn't it work for rolling.d.n?
1/ The current discussion is mainly about not freezing testing. For the wheezy freeze I could setup rolling.debian.net with a britney migrating stuff from unstable. And I could ask developers to upload new upstream versions to unstable. But then all the concerns that you raised would still be applicable and the fact that it's done in a .net service doesn't protect the release team from the bad consequences. 2/ The discussion is also about better supporting testing using t-p-u more extensively to bring important fixes (or important new upstream versions) that are blocked in unstable. It would be unreasonable to ask Debian developers to support testing and rolling.debian.net in parallel. 3/ rolling.debian.net would only be interesting to evaluate the few suggestions I made concerning the migration rules that we use (and which I explicitly said that they should not be considered in the current discussion… but that never works :)). But then I can run a britney and collect statistics without setting up rolling.debian.net for public consumption. For all those reasons, I believe the only sane way to go forward is to discuss with the release team to identify what needs to happen so that not freezing testing can become a serious possibility. To better structure the discussion, and make incremental progress, Sean and me have decided to draft a DEP on this topic. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- 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/20110430185039.ga25...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
