On 13/10/2024 16:17, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: (...) > What I intend on doing is to not (only) bump the version, but for a > while maintain dual branches of the crate rustls, to not force all > reverse dependencies to all change at once. Possibly it turns out that > there is no benefit - maybe the entanglement is so large that in > practice all or most packages effectively need to migrate at once > anyway, but I suspect that there is wiggle room, and I would like to > explore that. > > More detailed (since you asked for that in bug#1084138), my plan is...: > > 1. release src:rust-rustls v0.23 to experimental > 2. release new src:rust-rustls-0.21 to (experimental and then) unstable > 3. upgrade packages to use src:rust-rustls v0.23 in experimental > 4. move src:rust-rustls v0.23 to unstable if 3) seems fruitful > 5. deprecate src:rust-rustls-0.21 when no longer viable to maintain > > Time will tell the pace of each step, and whether it stalls at 3).
Thanks for the details ;) So my worry mostly lies in 2 and 5, which mean a NEW package and its RM in rather fast succession. For large transitions with multiple packages needing such maneuvers, I fear this would be a burden for FTP masters. -- Sdrager, Blair Noctis
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
