On 30/04/11 at 17:24 +0300, George Danchev wrote: > On Friday 29 April 2011 11:46:30 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 29/04/11 at 10:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > 2. In the past there used to be two rather opposites use-cases of > > > testing: some (luckely more than just the release team) see it as a tool > > > to develop stable. Others see it (mostly) as a usable distribution. > > > I'm unconvinced that splitting testing into rolling+testing will benefit > > > both use cases. (And I think this is shared rather widely in this > > > thread.) > > > > I think that the proposal is to: > > - rename 'testing' to 'rolling' to make it clear that it's usable as a > > rolling release > > It is also possible that a 'rename' brings no more value, but a confusion to > the users for unpredictable amount of time. > > > - add a new 'frozen' suite, used only during freezes, to prepare the > > next stable release > > So, if I need to fix an RC bug during the freeze, I'll upload to unstable, > then > release managers wait for it to enter rolling and cherry-pick it from there; > or do they cherry-pick directly from unstable, skipping rolling; > or do they cherry-pick from as they find fit in a mixed fashion.
Why would it be the release team's responsibility to cherry-pick from anywhere? It is the maintainer's responsibility to prepare packages that are suitable for the next stable release. I don't see why this would change. - Lucas -- 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/20110430222710.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info
