syncing from testing? [was: Quantal open for development]

[Scott Kitterman]

Colin Watson <cjwatson at ubuntu.com> 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