Hi Teodor/Bruce,
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Teodor MICU wrote:
> I've been disappointed at first to read that so many approve this
> "rolling" implementation that in fact is just "c-u-t", constantly
> usable testing [1]! Outside of the freeze period it doesn't really
> matter and on
On May 9, 2011 08:48:25 am Teodor MICU wrote:
> To conclude, "unstable-next" suite (or some other name [2]) is a
> requirement for "rolling" [3].
>
> Thanks
>
> [2] but not "experimental"
...unless the nature of experimental is changed, and its current function
replaced with PPA's?
- Bruce
-
2011/5/5 Raphael Hertzog :
> On Thu, 05 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Also, having the unstable-next suite you've mention would tight more the
>> deployment of rolling to other project mechanisms, while the rest of the
>> proposal enjoyed much more decoupling.
>
> There's no reason why thi
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 00:36:23 (CEST), Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
>> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>> Yes, during the freeze I ran into trouble with OpenAFS because I had
>>> too many different streams that I wanted to test at the same time.
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 07:48:45PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-05 07:46 +0200]:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > > If more new upstream versions are uploaded to unstable (because they are
> > > targeted at rolling), it raises the number
On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 12:51:33AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:51:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Pierre Habouzit writes:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> >> Le mercr
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:51:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> >> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>> >> > While I like
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Yes, during the freeze I ran into trouble with OpenAFS because I had
>> too many different streams that I wanted to test at the same time. I
>> was using experimental for the upcoming 1.6 release, which I r
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:39:29AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes:
> > Jonathan Nieder (05/05/2011):
> >> I personally don't think uploading packages to experimental before it
> >> is time for them to participate in transitions to testing and integrate
> >> with the rest of
On 12471 March 1977, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> What I expect to be needed is to make rolling a "real" suite that
>> retains packages. That will probably be needed sometimes. Though
>> packages only in rolling should be a transitory situation that the
>> rolling team is expected to minimize.
> E
gregor herrmann writes:
> Same idea: Would an experimental suite that's filled during the freeze
> to keep unstable free for RC bug fixes and migrates after the thaw plus
> (a) PPA(s) for experimenting (sic!) with newer releases help here?
Yes, absolutely. And PPAs would be really helpful for f
On Thu, 05 May 2011 17:46:34 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Yeah, experimental is not really the good place. We really want in
> > rolling only packages where we have the assurance that they will land
> > in unstable the day after the release (so automatically and not with
> > a manual sourc
On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:39:29 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Being able to tell bug reporters “please check what happens with the X
> > stack in experimental” (which had more or less latest upstream release
> > candidates or releases), and closing with those versions; or forwarding
> > upstream if
On Thu, 05 May 2011, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:46:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Yeah, experimental is not really the good place. We really want in
> > rolling only packages where we have the assurance that they will land
> > in unstable the day after the releas
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-05 07:46 +0200]:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> > If more new upstream versions are uploaded to unstable (because they are
> > targeted at rolling), it raises the number of RC bugs needing to migrate
> > to testing through t-p-u. How wou
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Jonathan Nieder (05/05/2011):
>> I personally don't think uploading packages to experimental before it
>> is time for them to participate in transitions to testing and integrate
>> with the rest of the next stable distribution is abuse at all. In fact
>> I wish people
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 06:51:35PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it
Pierre Habouzit writes:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
>> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
>>
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:46:10AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Yeah, experimental is not really the good place. We really want in
> rolling only packages where we have the assurance that they will land
> in unstable the day after the release (so automatically and not with
> a manual source uplo
Jonathan Nieder (05/05/2011):
> I personally don't think uploading packages to experimental before
> it is time for them to participate in transitions to testing and
> integrate with the rest of the next stable distribution is abuse at
> all. In fact I wish people would do it more often.
Being a
On Thursday, May 05, 2011 08:03:39 AM Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Currently Experimental is the place to upload things not ready for use
> > except under very narrow circumstances. It gets abused as a place for
> > new versions during freeze as it is, but if it's the define
Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Currently Experimental is the place to upload things not ready for use except
> under very narrow circumstances. It gets abused as a place for new versions
> during freeze as it is, but if it's the defined path into Rolling during
> freezes then there's a need to separ
On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 04:58:31 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 04:25:35 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > What to do during freezes
> > > -
> > >
> > > If we want to do so
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:07:28AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:58:31AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 05/05/11 at 08:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > > > Could you please give a concrete e
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:58:31AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/05/11 at 08:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> > > > I think all existing cases
On 05/05/2011 08:50 AM, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:05:22AM +0300, Cristian Henzel wrote:
>>> What to do during freezes
>>> -
>>> I’m not sure we really need to do something different in times of
>>> freeze. Our time would be better spent by reduc
On 05/05/11 at 08:51 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> > > I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to
> > > either t-p-u or unstabl
Le jeudi 05 mai 2011 à 08:23 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > Could you please give a concrete example of where this would be needed?
> > I think all existing cases should be covered by uploading directly to
> > either t-p-u or unstable.
>
> Use case:
> During freeze, there's a library transit
Hi,
On Wed, 04 May 2011, sean finney wrote:
> It's an excellent idea. Some of the initial feedback that I've gotten
> about DEP-10 (in particular some brainstorming on IRC with Carsten Hey)
> is pointing at ideas along these lines, and I hope to flush them out
> in a bit more detail RSN. But I t
On 04/05/11 at 22:19 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
> > rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful i
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:05:22AM +0300, Cristian Henzel wrote:
> > What to do during freezes
> > -
> > I’m not sure we really need to do something different in times of
> > freeze. Our time would be better spent by reducing the freeze time and
> > making it more predic
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:48:46PM +0200, Carsten Hey wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-04 22:23 +0200]:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > > While I like the idea in general, I think th
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, sean finney wrote:
[...]
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:25:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > What to do during freezes
>> > -
>> > If we want to do something diff
Hiya,
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:25:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What to do during freezes
> > -
> > If we want to do something different though, there is a simple recipe:
> > allow package
> What to do during freezes
> -
> I’m not sure we really need to do something different in times of
> freeze. Our time would be better spent by reducing the freeze time and
> making it more predictable; squeeze has been an awesome step in this
> direction.
>
> If we want
On Wednesday, May 04, 2011 04:25:35 PM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > What to do during freezes
> > -
> >
> > If we want to do something different though, there is a simple recipe:
> > allow packages to
* Pierre Habouzit [2011-05-04 22:23 +0200]:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> > > possible to upload packages directly to ro
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:17:03PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> If you want to go ahead with patching britney, by all means go ahead, as
> it might provide patches useful for the main brintey as well. But if you
> want to try some alternatives, we can probably help.
I don't think you need to
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:19:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> > While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> > possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
> > rolling-proposed-updates). It wi
Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 22:12 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> While I like the idea in general, I think that it should also be
> possible to upload packages directly to rolling (through
> rolling-proposed-updates). It will be useful in cases where neither the
> package in testing, not the pack
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:30:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > It starts from the following fact: if you want a testing system that
> > works correctly, you usually have to add APT lines for unstable, while
> > pinning them to only install specif
On 04/05/11 at 14:24 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hi,
>
> during the recent discussions about rolling, a proposal was made in a
> blog comment, and after giving it some quick thoughts, most people I’ve
> talked with seem to think it is a good idea, so it’s time for it to be
> discussed at larg
Hi,
Josselin Mouette writes:
> The new “rolling” suite
> ---
> This would be a pseudo-suite, like experimental. Except that while
> experimental is built on top of unstable and filled manually by
> maintainers, rolling would be built on top of testing and filled
> semi-aut
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:24:12PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> The new “rolling” suite
> ---
> This would be a pseudo-suite, like experimental. Except that while
> experimental is built on top of unstable and filled manually by
> maintainers, rolling would be built on t
Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 16:20 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> A full suite can have 2 versions of the same source package and
> can contain both libgnomekbd4 and libgnomekbd7. It's not a problem.
OK, so I officially do not care a shit™.
> > What the britney-like thing could do is bring auto
Hi,
(you already know, but let's state that on dd@ too)
Josselin Mouette (04/05/2011):
> during the recent discussions about rolling, a proposal was made in
> a blog comment, and after giving it some quick thoughts, most people
> I’ve talked with seem to think it is a good idea, so it’s time for
Piotr Ożarowski dijo [Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:22:07PM +0200]:
> [Josselin Mouette, 2011-05-04]
> > This would be a pseudo-suite, like experimental. Except that while
> > experimental is built on top of unstable and filled manually by
> > maintainers, rolling would be built on top of testing and fil
Josselin Mouette writes:
> This way, when something is broken in testing and cannot be unbroken
> quickly, a maintainer who notices it could add (or make the people in
> charge add) the necessary packages to the override file. If, for a
> reason or another, an important bug fix or a security upda
On Wed, 04 May 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > It doesn't need to be a pseudo-suite. It's a collection of packages taken
> > in testing or unstable, it's not more complicated to make it a full suite.
>
> It cannot be “just” a full suite. When you add a package coming from
> unstable, you must al
Le mercredi 04 mai 2011 à 15:30 +0200, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Wed, 04 May 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > It starts from the following fact: if you want a testing system that
> > works correctly, you usually have to add APT lines for unstable, while
> > pinning them to only install speci
[Didier Raboud, 2011-05-04]
> While I agree with the demotivation stance, why can't those packages be
> uploaded to experimental, fwiw ?
because that's not what experimental is for and it's harder to use it
(did you notice that python3.2 is in experimental or did someone gave
you proper apt-pinni
Hi,
I came to the same conclusion than you after the discussion we had in
the comments of your article. I think it's the right approach. I still
have a few comments though.
On Wed, 04 May 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> It starts from the following fact: if you want a testing system that
> works
Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Josselin Mouette, 2011-05-04]
>> This would be a pseudo-suite, like experimental. Except that while
>> experimental is built on top of unstable and filled manually by
>> maintainers, rolling would be built on top of testing and filled
>> semi-automatically. A rolling syst
[Josselin Mouette, 2011-05-04]
> This would be a pseudo-suite, like experimental. Except that while
> experimental is built on top of unstable and filled manually by
> maintainers, rolling would be built on top of testing and filled
> semi-automatically. A rolling system would have typically 2 APT
Hi,
during the recent discussions about rolling, a proposal was made in a
blog comment, and after giving it some quick thoughts, most people I’ve
talked with seem to think it is a good idea, so it’s time for it to be
discussed at large.
It starts from the following fact: if you want a testing sys
55 matches
Mail list logo
