Hi, On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > Other steps to take as preventative measures:
> * Make it a *MUST* that all transitions, no matter how small, are > checked with the release team starting from as soon as the freeze is > announced (not just after it starts) such that uploads which start a > transition could be pushed into DELAYED or REJECTed automatically. (Not > easy to implement this one, I know.) This could be implemented by building uploads to unstable against testing instead of unstable. Currently problematic uploads to unstable don't affect users of testing because they will not migrate, but they do affect development of testing (which is done in unstable), because they will prevent reverse build-dependencies from migrating. If uploads to unstable were built against testing, uncoordinated uploads of build-dependencies would not affect development, because they would not be used by the autobuilders until they were allowed to migrate to testing. They would still be used (and tested) by developers running unstable on their systems. To allow developers to adapt their packages to newer versions of build-dependencies, they should be able to selectively choose build-dependencies from unstable. A similar setup is already implemented for experimental (which builds against unstable by default, unless the build-dependencies explicitly specify packages from experimental). Newer versions of build-dependencies could also be specified for binNMU's, to allow rebuilds for transitions. The implementation of PPA's might allow individual developers to build their packages against testing and move these to unstable. Cheers, Ivo -- 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/20130510092334.ga...@ugent.be
