Release management thoughts for Dapper Drake

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:25:14AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - syncs for new debian releaeses, but no new upstream version, should be
> allowed. rationale: fixing smaller bugs, getting packages in sync with
> unstable to lower the number of packages which need to explicitely
> maintained for ubuntu.

This is something we discussed during the Warty cycle, and my feeling then
(as it is now) is that the differences between a Debian revision and an
upstream release is not consistent enough to warrant an automated decision.
We can't automatically trust a new Debian revision any more than we can
automatically trust a new upstream release.  Upstream releases can be very
conservative, and Debian revisions can introduce a great deal of
destabilization.  They both require similar levels of scrutiny during freeze
periods.

> - allow new subminor/minor versions. that depends on how upstream
> interprets these version numbers, what is done in these releases. maybe
> needs a look at the changes made. upstreams which only do bug fixing in
> these releases, could be handled that way, upstream's which do add stuff
> in these (like samba) are another thing (but maybe in the case of samba
> you want these changes).

Same issue as above, excepting projects like GNOME which have a rigorous
release methodology.

-- 
 - mdz