Hello Adam, On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 20:15, Adam D. Barratt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 19:51 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > > For the scope of "stable-updates" only then, would you say it makes > > sense to just use "stable" instead, for the reasons I mentioned? > > What do you say would be the negative impact of that (if any), since > > the repository is already enabled by default and not using it is > > equivalent to not updating the system until a point release gets out? > > Changing "stable" only happens at point releases, since it requires > (amongst other things) combined GPG signatures from the FTP Team and > Release Team. It's also a multiple hour process, involving both ftp and > release teams together with the press and images teams, updated > installers and so on.
I wasn't aware of this whole process happening for a point release, this puts things in perspective. > Removing stable-updates would mean that the only way that some changes > - for instance, timezone updates, clamav updates, critical regressions > introduced in a point release but not noticed until afterwards - would > reach users would be for us to perform a point release or for the users > to consume proposed-updates. I'm not convinced that either of those is > a useful alternative. Agreed, my proposal does not works with the current workflow. I'm interested in this process, is there any documentation you recommend me to understand the under-the-hood details of this? Thanks for the clarifications. -- Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
