>>>>> "Julian" == Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1. Create frozen between testing and unstable, initially as a
>> copy of testing. 2. Create frozen between testing and
>> unstable, initially as a copy of unstable.
Julian> Surely 2 defeats the whole purpose of testing? My
I think it depends on the policy used to move frozen --> testing.
For 1, you could use (for instance):
unstable --> frozen: must be done manually
frozen --> testing: using same procedure as currently used for
unstable-->testing?
For 2,
unstable --> frozen: ?
frozen --> testing: must be done manually
Julian> question was: will there be a frozen or not during the
Julian> freeze:
Julian> Possibility 1: We freeze testing and allow it to
Julian> stabilise, allowing upgraded packages into testing only if
Julian> they are deemed necessary by the release manager, then we
Julian> release testing as the new stable. Finally, after the
Julian> release, we start allowing the unstable -> testing flow
Julian> again.
Julian> Possibility 2: Your possibility 1, so that there are four
Julian> distributions during the freeze; testing continues to
Julian> carefully follow unstable, and frozen is, well ... frozen.
What is the benefit of this new frozen stage, instead of just freezing
the testing stage?
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
