Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: Q to all candidates: NEW queue"): > So in my original mail, I proposed that new packages would get > immediately accepted into unstable, but would still require a review > before migrating to testing. I believe that it's an interesting compromise, > because: > - while in unstable, they would get tested by our regular QA tools, that > are likely to find some of the issues ftpmasters would have found > - it makes it possible for the maintainer to get early feedback from > users, and to continue working on packaging reverse dependencies. > - it's unstable, so even if it's severely broken, it's probably not a > big deal. We have lots of packages in unstable that have been severely > broken for years anyway. > - it protects 'testing' (and our stable releases) from unreviewed > packages.
Because we build everything on unstable, it does not protect testing from .debs which were built using un-reviewed packages, does it ? In general maybe we shouldn't be migrating X.deb if its build-info says it was built using (a version of) Y which isn't in testing. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.