On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:50:36AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
Thanks a lot for your clarifications. > (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.) Wrt to lenny, we are talking about two reverse dependent packages. Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
