On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 23:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2015-04-08 22:45, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:17:59 +0200, Niels Thykier escribió: > >> [...] > >> > >> I had a chat with James Page and Emmanuel Bourg about Jenkins over IRC. > >> We concluded that it was infeasible for Debian to maintain Jenkins due > >> to the lack of upstream commitment to a LTS release-cycle of sufficient > >> length to match the length of Jessie[1]. > > > > Do you think is feasible or acceptable to maintain Jenkins in > > jessie-updates suite instead? > > > > I am not entirely convinced that Jenkins applies to stable-updates > criteria[1]. However, I am leaving the final call on that to the SRMs.
As someone who was involved in the initial setup of stable-updates, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced either. Packages such as clamav get updated to new upstream versions via stable-updates, but that's mostly because the (anti-)malware landscape changes sufficiently quickly that it's often not feasible to make small updates to the existing version in order to remain viable and we serve our users better by making newer engines available to them. Apologies if I'm missing something, but that really doesn't seem to be the case for Jenkins. https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/LTS+Release+Line suggests that "long-term" means "supported for three months". I'm struggling to combine those two ideas, particularly in the context of a Debian stable release. (Similarly ""battle-tested" — meaning those commits that have already been a part of a main line release for more than a week".) I do wonder whether backports might be suitable, but I can't and won't speak on behalf of the backports team. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1428531981.7798.30.ca...@adam-barratt.org.uk
