On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:44:51 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote: > I just realised, the packages I'm complaining about are essentially > squeeze backports. That is, they're packages that the packager wishes > could have gone into squeeze but can't because of the freeze, so they > go into experimental instead. > > Would it make sense then to start $x-backports as soon as $x gets > frozen? That way experimental doesn't become a tangled mess of > backports and actual experimental packages, you get a head start in > starting the backport branch, and maybe even in a few lucky cases, the > release managers can even let one of the backports past the freeze. > > Does this make sense?
Yes, I very much agree. If you look at recent CUT discussions, Joey Hess and I have come to the conclusion that that is what "rolling" should be. However, there Raphael Herzog and others see rolling as a never-frozen testing. We'll see what happens. From my perspective the backports concept is much simpler and cleaner, and that is what I am going to push for. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101012160144.71770950.michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com