Hi When the code base is similar for unstable and older releases this is a good approach. However when the code-base difference grows this approach becomes more and more problematic since the correction may be quite different in older code-base. This means that it may be a good practice in certain cases, but not a general rule.
// Ola On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 20:37, Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:58:34AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > There has been a suggestion recently that all fixes should go through > > unstable first. The claimed benefit is that this reduces the chance of > > a regression. > > which I think is pretty important for security updates in general and > the more important the older the supported suite is. in oldoldoldstable > I really dont want to see experiments. > > also, given there are more fixup-DLAs than fixup-DSAs I think it's prudent > to reduce the risk for regressions for DLAs. > > > In the discussion, it became clear that there is a > > significant cost to this approach: substantial delays to LTS/ELTS > > updates. > > quality work costs time. > > > -- > cheers, > Holger > > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C > ⠈⠳⣄ > > "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." - A. Einstein > -- --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- | o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | ---------------------------------------------------------------
