Le samedi 18 juin 2011 à 23:29 +0300, Ahmad Samir a écrit : > So, is there a consensus about this yet? (note that the backports list > of packages keeps growing in the mean time :)).
Well, my own impression was that the consensus is : the policy for version 1 is : - we can upload a missing package in update provided : - it follow the same path as any update in term of QA, etc - it was asked by someone, with a bug report or something like that, that it break update from 2010.1 ( so that part is specifically tested ). - there is no package in updates or release ( ie, the exception is only once ) for version 2 and later : - new versions goes to backport, unless clearly expressed exceptions ( bugfixes branchs, annoying upstreams ). The exact list of exception is roughly well agreed, minus details ( where the devil hide, obviously ). However, we didn't wrote it, nor decided on how to decide. So we would need : - a list of such exception written somewhere - a documented way to decide how to be in the exception list, ie a criteria list. I have attempted a proposal here : https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/2011-June/005225.html , boklm attempted a slightly different one : https://www.mageia.org/pipermail/mageia-dev/2011-June/005373.html Both are similar in spirit, so the question is just finding clear and useful criterias. Regarding backport policy, we didn't started to discuss much, but I wouldn't except to have it different from Mandriva for now, except what does "supported" mean, and the impact on the whole system ( as Christian noted, how to fill stuff in bugzilla, or the impact on Requires for a packaging policy to avoid mixing version ). That's something to keep for later, since that's already hard to follow current discussion ( especially with people who do not trim the email they answer to, and since ). But I will summarize the ideas and send a email after the one about release cycle. -- Michael Scherer
