[cut-team] Where do we go from here?

[Asheesh Laroia]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 23/09/10 at 12:05 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 17:10:30 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>>> On 23/09/10 at 15:04 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>>>> Are you ready to work on rolling? If yes, do you have conditions?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>>
>>>> I am. I can help writing the code to pick updates from testing
>>>> into rolling and feed the result to dak. I can help managing
>>>> the direct flow of packages that would not go through testing (e.g.
>>>> chromium and other packages that we want in rolling that are not
>>>> in testing).
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer if rolling's rules were relatively close to testing so that
>>>> it can supersede it one day, at which point testing would become a branch
>>>> of rolling that starts at freeze time.
>>>
>>> Agreed. I'd like to start with the current testing transition rules, but
>>> I also would like us to keep an open mind about opportunities for
>>> diverging from the current testing rules.
>>
>> I apologize ahead of time for perhaps slowing down the inertia again,
>> but wouldn't it be prudent to consider other options for rolling before
>> jumping into an implementation?
>>
>> So, I think that the core problem for rolling is that:
>>
>>   1. Packages in testing sometimes disappear.
>>
>> I think there are at least three options that could address this; both
>> with advantages and disadvantages.
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree that there are other valid ways to address the same goal, but I
> think that they are inferior to a new "rolling" suite.
>
>>   a. New "rolling" suite that retains testing removals
>>      - advantage: easy to install
>>      - disadvantage: split user base / split developer effort
>
> It is likely that a usable rolling will also attract more users. So the
> switch is between:
> - testing with the current number of testing users
> - testing+rolling, with more users, and probably more of them using
>  rolling
> So I hope that we will end up with *more users* using packages that are
> sometimes *a bit different* from the ones in testing. All in all, I
> don't think that testing's testing will suffer much from that.

+1

I think that the naming makes a world of a difference. Lucas basically 
says everything I think, sooner than I do. (-:

And with rolling, I would help where possible, *especially* with outreach 
and helping people understand what we're doing.

I would not help with snapshots.

-- Asheesh.