On Вс, 2020-12-27 at 22:58 +0000, Lyndon Brown wrote: > As I envision it, we could have "rolling" and maybe "rolling-unstable" > (or "rolling-testing") with continual upgrades typically going directly > into "rolling", or with a 0-day migration from "rolling-unstable", with > the purpose of "rolling-unstable" being (1) for preparing multi-package > upgrades like with ppp and network-manager as which kicked off this > discussion, to avoid the upgrade conflict that caused, and (2) for > testing of anything with greater than normal potential to cause serious > will-not-boot type breakage (which might thus be given an unusual > larger migration delay, or a non-automatic migration). We thus get the > best of both worlds of current testing & unstable without the worst. > When it gets to "freeze time" for prepping a new stable release, a > snapshot of "rolling" could be taken as the new "stable-prep", and > worked on for a couple months or so with selective (direct or from- > rolling) upgrades until ready for release as stable. The big problem > would be how best to migrate those on current testing/unstable > channels.
We could invent such "rolling" where packages enter by the same rules as for "testing" but with zero delay. And probably, automatic removals due to RC-bugs would happen more quickly to stop rollout of broken software. So all linked packages would go together as soon as they become ready.
