On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 09:06:17AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Basically it looks ok. What about the freeze period for the toolchain? I > > think we usually suffer for a too early freeze of the glibc (it has been > > frozen in July for Etch, even if it has been unblocked a lot of time > > after). In my opinion, it would be better to freeze the upstream version > > at that time and allow minor update until the main freeze.
> Agreed. > Ubuntu uses this technic and it's called UVF for Upstream Version Freeze. > Most regressions come from new upstream version and only a small > percentage come from maintainer changes. I don't think the percentage is that small; packages with responsible upstreams who make careful stable releases seem to be compensated for by maintainers who happily introduce regressions of their own. ;) We avoided having an upstream version freeze for etch simply because the correlation between upstream version numbers and changes that didn't comply with the freeze guidelines was a weak one. I think it's fine to have this as a heuristic, but the version numbers really were not the major concern. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]