On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 00:36:23 (CEST), Russ Allbery wrote: > 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.
This anectode makes me wonder if t-p-u (or some suitable alias) should be enabled by default. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- 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/87tyd8z4qn....@faui44a.informatik.uni-erlangen.de
