Hi Sascha, On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:01:26AM +0000, Sascha Steinbiss wrote: > > You always need to outweight policy with sane reasons / common sense. > > If you think GenomeTools and its dependencies will pretty surely not > > feature any RC bug we will probably not need to keep new versions out of > > unstable. But how can you surely know this? > > Well, I cannot prove it... but as there is currently only one package > depending on it and I'm both its upstream author and maintainer, I think > I'm fairly sure ;)
There is no reason to assume that RC bugs can only occure in upstream code. There are a lot of chances that packaging issues and cross package problems occure even if the upstream code is perfectly fine. > > I think by waiting a certain time to see whether some QA tools have > > run once or twice which is probably in a one month time frame. > > Oh, I didn't know these tools also run on experimental. In this case I > completely agree! Well, this is a misunderstanding. The QA tools are running on testing and unstable and I would wait a bit to be sure that several runs will not show anything problematic. If this is the case we could think about "violating" freeze policy and upload to unstable. > > So if you are sure the Debian import Freeze for Ubuntu will be Feb > > 2015 it might be the best compromise to upload GenomeTools (and its > > dependencies) in mid January which should be sufficient to a) reach > > Ubuntu and b) uncover any RC bugs in testing. > > Absolutely! The Ubuntu import freeze for vivid is on Feb 19th > (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VividVervet/ReleaseSchedule) so mid January > definitely sounds good. So we can agree upon uploading mid January (latest at our sprint :-)). See you Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141215113047.gc...@an3as.eu
