Simon McVittie: > On Wed, 05 Apr 2017 at 10:23:00 +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: >> Simon McVittie: >>> I would like to check whether the fix for #857660 (fd.o #92832) is >>> something the release team would be comfortable with seeing in stretch, >>> or whether it should be deferred to buster. I was recently able to get >>> it tested and reviewed by SELinux users other than its author. >> >> I believe we have 1.11 now, so this should already be fixed via that, >> correct? > > No, we only have 1.11 in experimental. dbus uses a GNOME-like odd/even > versioning scheme, so 1.odd branches are unsuitable for stable [...]
Ah, indeed, I misread the dak output. > > The proposed fix for #857660 is a backport from the 1.11 branch. > > I'm intending to release 1.12.0 sometime after stretch is released, with > buster probably shipping with 1.12.z or 1.14.z for some large number z. > > Please let me know whether you'd prefer me to release this change to > 1.10.z for stretch, or exclude it from 1.10.z. > I am fine with it including it in stretch (at least assuming it is done prior to the stretch release). > [...] > > For the buster cycle (or at least the first part of it), I'm considering > being more aggressive about uploading 1.odd.z releases to unstable > so they get early testing, and switching to a 1.even.z branch (if > necessarily releasing one specifically for Debian) at or before the > transition freeze date. Would that be good to have? > > S > Depends on how unstable the development releases are and how good we are at catching the regressions before they reach testing. :) Anyhow, the early phases of the development cycle would be the time to experiment with that. :) Thanks, ~Niels
