On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 08:37:11AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 15:46 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
A link to where you can find the upstream release notes would actually
help here.
Indeed, but the project doesn't provide anything useful in that
respect. It is quite astonishing, that some intergral tools in the
Debian toolchain have rather litte public interfaces.
> Otherwise we should consider an offcial two phase support scheme
where
> functionality/enhancements/minor bugs are phased out earlier than the
> final EOL. That way packagers would have a target line of what makes
> sense to backpackage and when to not. Currently everyone draws this
> line arbitrary from the release of the next Fedora release to the
> actual EOL date.
I support the general idea of this, a loose guideline, letting
maintainers make their own judgment.
Probably the most important part is where to set this fuzzy date
between full support and maintenance support, so packagers have a
common notion of when to stop pushing updates to certain releases.
Thanks for that. One thing you didn't address though, why is
this going
directly to stable?
Previous updates (not only for fakeroot) showed that there isn't much
happening in testing, I have to do most of the testing locally or with
direct coordination with the other interested parties. Adding that a
later push from testing to stable a few days before EOL would be even
more alarming I became stable-trigger-happy. Turns out to be a bad
thing as any modification requests to bodhi (like ones resulting from
this thread) didn't get a chance to be molded in. I'll get back to
normal testing/stable procedures (I get more often complaints that the
packages remain too long in stable, now i ballanced it off :).
Happy Xmas!
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net