Summary: Syncing from testing a success?

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at
Sun Apr 25 00:01:05 BST 2010

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:22:17PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Con:
> - Debian encountered RC bugs which aren't relevant to Ubuntu and held
>   up testing propagation
>   → compromise: autosync from unstable until DIF, then autosync from
>   testing for a bit longer

I don't believe this compromise would successfully achieve the aims of
syncing from testing, as it's very unlikely that within the "bit longer",
many of the fixes for the release-critical bugs in unstable will reach
testing - yet we'll have picked up those bugs by syncing from unstable from
the opening of the archive through DIF.  Unless the "bit longer" is measured
in months, I expect overall quality would be higher with either continuous
syncing from testing from the cycle opening to the end of DIF, or with
syncing from unstable through DIF plus explicit tracking of RC bugs as
they're fixed in *unstable* and semi-automatic syncing of these bugfixing
packages (i.e., avoiding the typical 10-day delay for Debian testing).

> - tangent: we should review removals from testing and check if we
>   should remove them from Ubuntu

Since packages may be removed from testing for reasons other than bugs in
the package (e.g., temporary removals in support of testing installability
during a library transition), I think this would give very low S:N unless
coupled with the same check for RC bugs I mention above.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                          
slangasek at                                     vorlon at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list