* Lucas Nussbaum [2011-05-02 09:20 +0200]: > On 02/05/11 at 08:19 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Also note that testing as is has not enough security support, and > > read Carsten very good example of the PAM issues. How would CUT or > > rolling address those? > > The PAM issue outlines how splitting the users and developers between > two branches (unstable and testing post-freeze in the PAM case) causes > problems.
In my opinion it outlines how migration through barely used suites (e.g., *-updates) significantly raises the number of buggy packages entering a frozen testing. The need to use those suites is mostly caused by uploading new upstream versions to unstable even though they will never reach the suite that currently is testing. > [C] we could compromise. We could freeze rolling for 3 months, so that > most of the stabilization work occurs with a single active branch, > and then, for the final release preparation, fork 'frozen' off > 'rolling', and unfreeze 'rolling'. The mentioned PAM issue happened four months after freeze. Decreasing the chances to catch critical bugs before they enter a frozen testing does not seem to be the best idea, especially if it is done shortly before we plan to release. It would be great if we would find a clever way to be able to release three months after freeze. If we don't find a way to do so, we could: * Add a non-selfcontained suite to upload non-experimental packages not targeted at testing to. This would lower the number of packages needing to go through testing-proposed-updates during freeze and could also serve as entry point for rolling. * Set up a dak instance for rolling and rolling-proposed-updates on rolling.debian.net, announce it and see if it works. * If it works, make rolling official. Regards Carsten -- 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/20110502135115.ga22...@furrball.stateful.de
