2017-01-04 14:32 GMT+01:00 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org>: > On 04/01/17 12:02, Jérémy Lal wrote: >> 2017-01-04 11:56 GMT+01:00 Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk>: >>> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2017-01-04 10:12:44) >>>> 2017-01-04 10:04 GMT+01:00 Andrey Rahmatullin <w...@debian.org>: >>>>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:34AM +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: >>>>>> i really think it would be best to have nodejs 6.9 in next debian >>>>>> release. >>>>>> That version is currently in experimental and i was about to upload it >>>>>> to unstable, but i tried to do things right and prepared the addons >>>>>> that need to be rebuilt and binNMUed, then opened a transition bug >>>>>> #849505. >>>>>> No answer yet, people are busy, and the number of concerned packages >>>>>> is low (a dozen or so), should i just rebuild and upload them myself ? >>>>> The transition freeze was on Nov 5. >>>> >>>> This is not very smart - i'm talking about something that will make >>>> future maintenance and security patches easier, something that is easy >>>> to do and that i can even do alone. >>>> Contrast this with an openssl 1.1 upload few days before the >>>> transition freeze. I don't get it. >>> >>> libssl transition was coordinated with the release team well before the >>> freeze. >>> Apart from giving up and let things rest as they are (or fall apart and >>> get kicked out), I believe there is also the option of asking the >>> release team for permission to do the transition even if late. >> >> Oh, i thought transition bugs were read by release team. >> Please, release team ? > > Sorry but this is way too late. Shipping the latest upstream release always > makes it easier to backport fixes, but at some point we need to stop accepting > transitions in order to stabilise and prepare for the release. That point was > two months ago.
That's too bad for debian stable, especially considering the high level of compatibility between the two versions, the transition could have been quick and painless. Jérémy
