HI Andreas On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 at 16:06, Andreas Tille <ti...@debian.org> wrote: > Sorry, my question was probably confusing. I was not talking about the > new packages. I was talking about the 170 r-bioc-* packages. If I > upload these to experimental, will it be necessary to upload these to > unstable again or can these be moved to unstable in one rush. Also > interesting in this connection: Will the tracker display the levels > of packages uploaded to experimental?
I still don't think this has ever been possible. > I'm comfortable with doing source-only uploads of packages that have > passed NEW. I'm not comfortable with uploading 170 packages twice - > once to experimmental and once again to unstable. Given that all > this work has mainly ended up on my shoulders I would prefer to > upload directly to unstable and simply bear with the waiting time > in NEW. Why do you want to upload 170 packages to experimental? We are only asking that the NEW packages involved be uploaded to experimental and clear NEW review before we start the transition. > But you just mentioned the tracker in your previous mail[1]. The tracker is visible [0], but is still in the 'Some planned transitions' section along with many others. > I admit I personally see the bigger drawback on spending my time twice > on 170 packages than waiting for new packages. Please explain (again) > the real drawback of a transition that was delayed due to waiting for > new packages in total by estimated (not verified) by about two weeks. >From what I saw in the last transition, r-bioc-biocgenerics was uploaded on 2023-07-17, and the last package (I think) to clear NEW was r-bioc-pfamanalyzer, which was accepted on 2023-08-15, almost one month after the transition started. Again, we are not asking for the entire transition to happen in experimental. We are only asking for the NEW packages, so that NEW processing happens before the transition, and not during. Regards Graham [0] https://release.debian.org/transitions/
