CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

[Alexander Neundorf]

On 2017 M01 6, Fri 22:39:22 CET Ben Cooksley wrote:
> See my notes above re. why tying this to the dependency freeze date is
> a bad idea and won't really work.
> 
> Given that we potentially have to take into account Qt version bumps
> and base system rebuilds - i'll give a timeline of 1 month's advance
> notice (this is an absolute worst case scenario time). In most
> instances we can turn things around in much shorter time (about a
> week), especially where it's just a case of installing an already
> available package / adding a PPA/Equivalent Repository.
> 
> The significant variation in time above is why I don't want to
> actually specify a time frame which is set in stone. Some things are
> just easier to provide / upgrade than others.

how about some simple rule like "new dependencies every first of the month", 
and 1 week notice. For the developer this would mean in the worst case 5 weeks 
waiting, which is probably quite a lot.
E.g. if you need a new dependency, and announce it let's say January 6th, 
you'll get it February 1st.
If you announce it January 29th, you get it March 1st.

Of course such the numbers (weeks) are arbitrarily chosen and could be 
different.

I guess something like this would be convenient for "consumers" of the 
sources.

Alex