On vrijdag 8 juli 2016 18:01:31 CEST Hillel Lubman wrote: > The way I see it, improvement can be achieved by providing some relation > between packages. I.e. making sure they enter testing all at once, and if > one is stuck, other related ones wouldn't enter. This would ensure that > frameworks all enter at once, and users of testing would be able to > continue rolling the rest of their system, even if frameworks are stalled. > > Do you think it's a feasible solution, or it doens't fit into Debian > methodology? Or you think frameworks shouldn't be seen as one related set > of packages?
_I_ think it's useful feedback (fwiw). The way I currently see/understand them is this: It was unforeseen that the mixture of 5.22 and 5.23 of framework packages would cause issues and that is actually not 100% certain, but it very much looks like the solution as getting those in (version) sync seemed to have solved the issues every time. Debian has a 'feature' for coordinated transitions, namely https:// release.debian.org/transitions/ but as can be read in the linked documentation (https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions) the frameworks packages actually shouldn't qualify for that feature as there is no ABI/API change (normally) between framework packages versions. I may not fully understand this feature myself though.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
