Re: Debian 2.2 Release.
In message <20000628050542.A5464@priv3.onet.pl>, Tomasz Wegrzanowski writes:
>On Tue, Jun 27, 2000 at 07:12:19PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>> > If they say they have new STABLE, we should put it into
>> > both frozen and unstable as soon as debian/* works.
>> > And if they support debian/* we should put it
>> > into archives even in day when they announced stable.
>> Naive. Very naive.
>> Upstream authors may consider some degree of testing to be "stable".
>> Debian may consider another degree of testing to be necessary before
>> something is stable. It's just a word. Definitions vary. We can't expect
>> upstream authors to have a definition that is the same as ours.
>I was talking about applications (see my list : mozilla, freeciv, gnumeric...)
>They usually can't break anything but themself.
Sounds like what you're saying is that any package that no other package
depends on should be allowed in whenever, since the only risk is breaking
the package itself. Makes sense, but is it risk-free in terms of security,
and what degree of testing needs to be done on it to ensure the package
itself is stable in our current environment (see Joey's concern)?