Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: >> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the problems >> > was that many updates were blocked by that, and once the freeze was >> > over, unstable tended to become _very_ unstable, and took months to get >> > back into shape. >> >> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable freeze)? > > My guess is that the release team would go insane having to approve > every upload to unstable.
I don't think so. Dinstall would reject any new upstream release. Approvals would only apply to t-p-u just like it is done currently. > Before you say it, it's much easier to do this sort of thing in Ubuntu > because we have a small enough team that we don't have to lock down the > archive during freezes, but instead just say "don't upload without > approval". In Debian, we've seen many times (e.g. when trying to get > large groups of interdependent packages into testing) that not all > developers can be assumed to have read announcements or will agree with > the procedure, and I think we could expect many unapproved uploads if we > tried such an open procedure; so we'd have to lock down the archive > using technical measures. I agree with you. It is too bad we'd have to lock down the archive, but you don't manage a set of 900 volonteers the same way you manage 30 payed developers, methink. Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org