#include <hallo.h> * Christoph Berg [Mon, Oct 31 2005, 03:04:53PM]: > Re: Aurelien Jarno in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So I would like to propose to drop testing during a limited period of > > time (let's say 4 months) after the release, to have the time to make > > all the necessary big transitions. > > Isn't that what has effectively happened? Now unstable is in shape, > and testing will be updated from it.
Yep. What about another crazy idea... why not check the expected impact from a certain package update before a package has been accepted in _Unstable_? So katie could just veto a version change automaticaly before it too much mess is created, even (or especially) in Unstable. This opens few new questions: 1) do we have ressources to do a such thing at all? (memory requirements) 2) who would control this system and how? I imagine a "simple" permissions scheme: a) release team could set absolute constraints b) normal package needs a second approval from another person if it going to change the state of more than one package. Two approvals for >> 6 packages, 3 for >> 36 packages, etc. (or something like that). And maybe this approvals would need to come from dependent maintainers. I think this colaborative policy _could_ establish a more reliable chain of responsibility and prevent things like the infamous "transition". Eduard. -- In the beginning was the word, and the word was content-type: text/plain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
