Review: Syncing from testing a success?
bryce at canonical.com
Thu Apr 8 23:16:02 BST 2010
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:41:48PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
The following is strictly considering the X.org packages only.
(Requirements had us pulling new X versions fairly aggressively.)
> So, in your opinion, did syncing from testing
> (1) help to avoid introducing larger breakage into Ubuntu (for the
> domain you are usually watching)
No. Debian-X tends to be pretty careful. Once stuff appears in
-unstable it's gotten good review and tends to be solid. For X the
level of risk pulling from unstable is not much different than from
> (2) meant a smaller or larger amount of review and sync requests
It notably increased the amount of sync requests we filed, although the
time-per-sync is small. Better syncing tools would help.
> (3) made it easier or harder to merge with Debian and get changes
> integrated back upstream
It introduced some time lag into getting fixes from Debian, which
impacted our work a bit and caused some extra labor overhead. But not a
major issue, just an irritation mostly.
> (4) made library transitions easier or harder
Somewhat harder, basically ditto #3.
> (5) anything else that caused or eased problems that you can think
For X.org purposes IMO syncing from Testing overall in total was a
slight hinderance. If it helped other parts of the distro it's probably
worth the extra irritation, but for X I don't think it brought
any substantive benefits.
> In order to not bias the discussion, I'll send my own experience as a
> followup later on.
> Thank you in advance for your answers, and let's have an outstanding
> Lucid release!
More information about the ubuntu-devel