On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:24:47AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote: > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:17:11PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> writes:
> > > I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I > > > understand that with the current setup (e.g. unstable, testing, ..), > > > there is probably no other way. > > I'm unhappy about it too, but I don't understand it. Where can I find > > an explanation for the necessity of freezing ‘unstable’ when preparing > > to release ‘testing’? > I'd be also very interested about this information -- which seems to be > common sense -- but I cannot see the necessity as well. It's not necessary to freeze unstable when preparing to release testing; this is a significant reason why testing exists as a separate suite. So in fact, unstable is *not* frozen. It is recommended to treat unstable as frozen for libraries, because uploads of such central packages to unstable makes it more onerous to get fixes to other packages depending on those libraries into testing via the normal route; but I'm of the opinion that the pendulum has swung too far the other direction for lenny, with maintainers uploading leaf packages to experimental instead of to unstable for freeze reasons, when the probability of an upload to unstable causing more work for the lenny release is infinitesimal. (I understand that the current discussion is about a case of a package with a lot of reverse-dependencies; so I don't disagree with the conclusion to avoid an upload to unstable for now.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
