[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#720108: Please upload 0.3.3 to unstable



Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:36:21AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>> > Package: supertux
>> > Version: 0.1.3-3
>> > Severity: wishlist
>> >
>> > The supertux 0.3.x series has been in experimental for years now.  Any
>> > reason not to upload it to unstable?
>> 
>> No reason, aside from that's the state the package was in when I first
>> adopted supertux.
>> 
>> If we were to change this, I'd be more inclined to go with Ubuntu's
>> approach here, i.e. package both and let users have the choice to
>> install one or both at the same time. In Ubuntu, they have
>> src:supertux which builds binary packages supertux and supertux-data
>> (from the 0.3.x branch), and src:supertux-stable which builds binary
>> packages supertux-stable and supertux-data-stable (from the 0.1.x
>> branch). No file conflicts are introduced (supertux 0.3.x installs
>> /usr/games/supertux2, whereas supertux 0.1.x installs
>> /usr/games/supertux).
>
> What's the rationale for maintaining both branches, rather than just
> dropping the 0.1.x series completely?

Version 1
=========

This is the stable version of SuperTux, also called Milestone 1. It
provides a polished gaming experience and is the overall recommended
version.

Version 3
=========

The development snapshot is an unstable version of SuperTux, meant as a
technology preview and for people who are not afraid to write bug
reports.

Please keep in mind that this is a work in progress! Everything you see
here is subject to change and may even be removed.

---

Or in other works the 0.3 series is not something you'd expect in a
stable release (at least not as `supertux' it *might* be fine as
`supertux-experimental' if you believe there's need for 0.3 in a stable
release *and* you are willing to support it independent from upstream

    Christoph


Reply to: