On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 12:51:33AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Pierre Habouzit <madco...@madism.org> writes: > > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:51:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Pierre Habouzit <madco...@madism.org> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > >> >> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > >> >> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be > >> >> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through > >> >> > rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful in cases where neither > >> >> > the > >> >> > package in testing, not the package in unstable, can be used to fix a > >> >> > problem in rolling. > >> >> > >> >> Adding this possibility is opening PandoraâÂÂs box. Once you allow > >> >> this, > >> >> people start using packages that are neither in unstable nor in testing, > >> >> and they donâÂÂt help us working on our packages at all. This also > >> >> adds an > >> >> extra burden on maintainers who want to use this feature. > >> >> > >> >> Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed? > >> >> I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to > >> >> either t-p-u or unstable. > >> > > >> > Agreed, the entry point for rolling is clearly just unstable + a force > >> > hint. Why would you need to upload something to rolling that you > >> > couldn't make enter through unstable? > >> > >> Say you have just uploaded a new upstream release to unstable and then > >> someone reports a RC bug against testing. Pushing this untested version > >> into rolling isn't the right thing. > >> > >> Would a t-p-u upload get added to rolling quickly too in those cases? > >> What if testing is frozen? > > > > I'd say let's see with the reality if it works or not. It's clear that > > rolling will have RC bugs. The question is "will it be bearable or not".. > > I think so. with "what if" discussions we'll go nowhere, that's why I'd > > be in favor of a small experiment with the smallest amount of work to be > > done (my "just use a britney to chose between unstable and testing and > > nothing more" proposal), and see how well/bad that performs. > > Hell, why britney?
To compute something that is actually installable and maximizes the installability count doh! -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madco...@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org -- 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/20110505225350.gb...@madism.org
