On Thu, 05 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:46:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Yeah, experimental is not really the good place. We really want in > > rolling only packages where we have the assurance that they will land > > in unstable the day after the release (so automatically and not with > > a manual source upload). > > Isn't the ability to "copy" .changes file around suites a completely > orthogonal problem?
Yes it is. > I don't think it'd be reasonable to have scenarios in which I might have > uploaded to one such suite 1.5 years ago and having that upload be > scheduled for as long as that automatically to unstable the day after > the release. That's a problem only if you mix stuff in experimental. If you have a repository dedicated to such updates that are supposed to end up in unstable, it's no longer problematic (and I doubt we would have a freeze of 1.5 year ;-)). > Also, having the unstable-next suite you've mention would tight more the > deployment of rolling to other project mechanisms, while the rest of the > proposal enjoyed much more decoupling. There's no reason why this unstable-next would be a requirement to start rolling. It's just a suggestion of how to handle package updates during the freeze. 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/20110505183031.gc31...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
