Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes, during the freeze I ran into trouble with OpenAFS because I had >> too many different streams that I wanted to test at the same time. I >> was using experimental for the upcoming 1.6 release, which I really >> wanted to have available in Debian for people to test but which is a >> huge technological change, and there were also new stable 1.4 releases >> that (in a rolling model) should have gone into unstable and then into >> rolling. But I was holding unstable free to handle point fixes for >> testing. > We do have testing-proposed-updates as a mechanism for getting updates > into testing when unstable contains packages not suitable for release. > Under these circumstances, wouldn't it have been better to upload the > new 1.4 releases to unstable and use testing-proposed-updates for any > critical issues that came up? Maybe we've simply become too > conservative about keeping the unstable->testing path unblocked, when we > should be relying more on t-p-u (which AFAICS, is more reliable now than > it was when I was RM)? I considered it, but I'm really worried about t-p-u not getting enough testing. Maybe enough people are now using proposed-updates during freeze testing that it's not an issue. The stuff going into stable is what needs to be tested the most heavily; I wasn't as worried about the new 1.4 releases, since they were going to have plenty of time to be tested anyway. -- 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/87oc3gg4go....@windlord.stanford.edu
