Pierre Habouzit <madco...@madism.org> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : >> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be >> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through >> > rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful in cases where neither the >> > package in testing, not the package in unstable, can be used to fix a >> > problem in rolling. >> >> Adding this possibility is opening Pandoraâs box. Once you allow this, >> people start using packages that are neither in unstable nor in testing, >> and they donât help us working on our packages at all. This also adds an >> extra burden on maintainers who want to use this feature. >> >> Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed? >> I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to >> either t-p-u or unstable. > > Agreed, the entry point for rolling is clearly just unstable + a force > hint. Why would you need to upload something to rolling that you > couldn't make enter through unstable?
Say you have just uploaded a new upstream release to unstable and then someone reports a RC bug against testing. Pushing this untested version into rolling isn't the right thing. Would a t-p-u upload get added to rolling quickly too in those cases? What if testing is frozen? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vulytt4.fsf@frosties.localnet