On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:28:54PM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote: > We shouldn't encourage too many people to run pre-release, assuming > its stability is about the same as frozen's stability. The reason > frozen is not upgraded to stable is because it has not been tested. > In fact, the first few weeks after frozen is created, frozen is often > *very* unstable, with many broken packages upgraded regularly. The criteria for acceptance to a frozen pre-release would be "bug fix only updates that have already been tested in unstable for a week", or similar. Severe bugs, like dupload suddenly failing, should get caught after a couple of days in unstable -- so the ``*very*'' in the above should disappear. Additionally, there shouldn't be a significant number of release critical bugs in prerelease anyway -- they should already have been noticed in unstable, and /not/ moved into prerelease, or fixed before the freeze by conscientious maintainers looking through the release critical bugs list outside of the freeze. The idea is that prerelease should be that portion of the current development tree that brave users can pick up and install and use and test. It should be missing the extreme instabilities, not have missing dependencies, and, ideally, should even have weekly CD images available so people can get CD ROMs burnt whenever they like. Ideally. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred. ``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''
Description: PGP signature