Colin Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 05:32:14PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Monday, April 30, 2012 04:07:08 PM Iain Lane wrote: >> > Seems this sentence was a mistake (at least for now). Quoting >#-release: >> > >> > 30/04 14:24:00 <Laney> "syncs from unstable": it changed then? >> > 30/04 14:25:59 <cjwatson> Laney: Hm, communication glitch >> > 30/04 14:26:05 <cjwatson> I was intending to run syncs from testing >> > until UDS >> >> When you all that will be at UDS discuss this, would you please >decide once >> and for all that Ubuntu will sync from Testing for LTS and Unstable >for non- >> LTS by default (there may, someday be a reason to diverge from this >for a >> cycle) so that we don't have to keep revisiting the "which release do >we sync >> from" question. I think the answer is generally clear and it's a >waste of >> energy to keep asking the same question again and again when we >~always get >> the same answer. > >Sorry I'm late in following up on this. > >The general consensus at UDS was indeed largely as you say: we should >sync from unstable for non-LTS by default, and we agreed to switch to >unstable for this cycle. I will try to remember to not have this >debate >in future non-LTS cycles. :-) > >Actually implementing this for quantal was blocked on some toolchain >work on ARM which we wanted to take the opportunity to complete before >doing another pile of syncs, but Adam told me this morning that this >was >complete. I've dug myself into a little bit of a hole by telling >Launchpad that quantal's parent series is wheezy, but I'm in the >process >of hacking my way around that in the auto-sync script. I expect to do >an initial auto-sync from unstable later today. > >There remains some question about what to do with future LTS cycles. >Depending on the progress of work on running our own equivalent of >Debian's testing migration (which I seriously hope will be complete by >T, given that it's currently scheduled for quantal!), it's quite >possible that we'll reach the point where syncing from testing merely >introduces an extra source of delay and risk, rather than being a >useful >protection. However, I don't think we can answer that question until >we >have some practical experience with running our own migration scripts. Thanks for the follow-up. Where can I read about this plan for our own version of a Testing migration? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
