On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:50:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes: > Steve> Then perhaps it would help if there were some commonly > Steve> agreed-upon, objective criteria used to determine when a > Steve> package is ready for unstable as opposed to experimental? > Steve> (Projected number of RC bugs, optimal duration of transition > Steve> period, size of userbase...) This could at least help users > Steve> know what they're getting -- both in terms of how broken > Steve> unstable might be, and how out-of-date testing might be. > This is very hard, if not impossible, to determine a > priori. Unless someone hands me a crystall ball ;-) I'm not suggesting that this would be perfect, but right now, any inabilities to predict how stable a new package will be are compounded by the wide range of criteria developers use in deciding when to upload. Guidelines ought to at least give more consistent results. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpsEkNXrubLb.pgp
Description: PGP signature