On 03/12/14 15:36, Sam Hartman wrote: > You assert that even for leaf packages we should not make changes > in unstable targeted beyond jessie. I can see an argument for that > prior to the important bug deadline. However, past that point, I don't > see value in avoiding changes to leaf packages in unstable, and I'd like > to understand why you'd encourage folks to do so.
Avoiding non-testing-suitable changes (and particularly, new upstream versions) in unstable gives you, as maintainer, more flexibility with what you can get into testing in future, and gives potential NMUers the same benefit. testing-proposed-updates gets basically no testing, so the RT are reluctant to use it for anything that is not an isolated and minimal RC bug fix. unstable has more chance of catching regressions before they hit testing, so the RT are more willing to accept bugfixes whose risk/reward ratio looks good enough if they can go via unstable. Note that the deadline for pre-approved changes (which can potentially include lower-severity bugs if the fix is sufficiently small and obviously correct) is further away than the deadline for non-pre-approved important bugfixes. Uncoordinated new upstream versions are worse than uncoordinated Debian patches or packaging changes, both because they're likely to be larger and because if a patch or packaging change is a problem, it's typically easy for the maintainer to revert it and make a new upload to unstable whose diff relative to testing is smaller. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/547f34b5.1060...@debian.org