Op maandag 25 juli 2011 22:18:59 schreef Samuel Verschelde: > Le lundi 25 juillet 2011 21:47:24, Maarten Vanraes a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > with regards to backports, users are complaining (they always do) that > > backports are taking too long. > > > > on the one hand almost everyone seems to agree that backports should be > > "supported" in some way or another... however, noone seems to want to > > actuallty put in the time to finalize that. (or at least that's how I see > > it) > > > > Since afair there is no real consensus, i suggest one of the following > > options, or possibly make this a vote, or have packaging team leaders (or > > board) decide this: > > > > A. backports are maintainers responsibility > > > > Every backport is tested or untested by maintainers discretion, (s)he > > decides how much testing it needs. We could still make a policy that > > there should be some tests. > > > > B. well established support like updates > > > > Similar QA like updates. > > > > > > then there is the matter of submission: > > > > A. We submit all backports from cauldron > > > > B. like updates, there's a separate section for backports > > > > C. backport submission is only allowed from the separate section, not > > from cauldron, if you want to backports from cauldron, you need to make > > the necessary steps yourself. > > > > > > personally, i favor B & C; such as i think most of the people wanted; but > > if wanted, i can settle for A & B. > > > > If someone from -sysadmin can find the time to make the SVN repos for > > backports (and testing), that would be awesome, so we can actually do > > some testing for it and get this show on the road. > > > > > > Maarten (aka AL13N) > > > > PS: i specifically left out updates to backports, as i personally feel > > that it's a backport, it just gets a newer release or version. > > 1B and 2C for me, but I'm summarizing a more detailed proposal from the > previous discussion + discussion with misc on IRC, which I hope we will > adopt. > > Samuel
Excellent, thanks
