Hello Jonas,
Le 20/10/2024 à 08:55, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
Quoting Blair Noctis (2024-10-18 10:56:11)
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.
It won't be "in fast succession" if package dependencies are complex, as
is expected for rustls.
Ftp-masters should not be avoided at all cost - out-of-control migration
is a too high cost to pay!
is there a chance that it will be updated before the freeze?
I would appreciate this new release for ntp :)
Thanks
Sylvestre
