Sorry for duplicated email, On Thu, 2021-04-01 at 16:58 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > I don’t think we should have a security-updates > branch, because the role of that branch is effectively taken by > staging.
I don't think that's the case because staging is documented for things that do not make too many rebuilds (in which case they'd go to core- updates), and some times security updates do cause rebuilds in the 1800+ and they could not go through staging. The proposed security- updates branch would not have that limitation. We could of course also revisit the policy for staging and prioritize security updates through that branch while also committing to actually merging that branch on schedule. Léo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
