Re: 2.2r1 release problems
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 09:01:59PM -0800, zbrown@linuxcare.com wrote:
> I'd like to reiterate that I have no problem with creating 2.2r1. What I
> object to is that 2.2r1 was made a silent upgrade to 2.2. As far as I
> can see, this puts earth in the situation of having no stable version of
> Debian. None. And it throws into question the validity of all future updates
> as well. Unless some sort of policy is determined for the types of changes
> allowed into the stable tree, no one will be able to trust Stable to the
> extent that they did before. So I do think that r1 should have been given
> its own tree, and users forced to modify their /etc/apt/sources.list files
> in order to get the upgrade.
>
> I'd also suggest that an official announcement be made, to the effect that
> there was a mistake, it won't be repeated, and people can count on only
> such-and-such types of changes (bug fixes and security updates, I'd hope)
> to the stable tree in the future.
>
> Zack
While I'm not quite as upset as Zack about the 2.2r1 "silent" release, I have
to say I was surprised when apt told me it needed to download 7 megs worth of
debs. I looked on www.debian.org and didn't find any news of a release, so
then I looked in the IRC channel and noticed it was in the topic. I too
would have appreciated some advance notice on this.
--Adam
--
Adam McKenna <adam-sig@flounder.net> | "No matter how much it changes,
http://flounder.net/publickey.html | technology's just a bunch of wires
GPG: 17A4 11F7 5E7E C2E7 08AA | connected to a bunch of other wires."
38B0 05D0 8BF7 2C6D 110A | Joe Rogan, _NewsRadio_
1:35am up 156 days, 23:51, 11 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.21
Reply to: