Re: Temporal Release Strategy
>>>>> "wesley" == Wesley J Landaker <wjl@icecavern.net> writes:
wesley> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 08:12, Patrick A. Ouellette
wesley> wrote:
>> PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION:
>>
>> I suggest we can eliminate the traditional concept of a
>> "release" with the addition of another step in the progression
>> from unstable to stable. Additionally, all promotion of
>> packages from one step to the next will be automated according
>> to strict rules.
>>
>> The progression I see is:
>>
>> unstable -> testing -> candidate -> stable
wesley> I like the spirit of this idea, although I'm sure the
wesley> details need a lot of working over. (This could, but
wesley> wouldn't need to *replace* releases--it could simply
wesley> augment the release creation process.)
wesley> I'm interested to hear other's ideas on why this is/is not
wesley> a good idea, and what technical/logistical hurdles would
wesley> prevent this from being done.
Maybe a better approuch could be a more restrict testing rules and
then remove the need of one temporary distribution (candidate, in
this case).
I think if we have a testing more close then now we can have it in
releasable state faster and then allow releases more frequently
but I can be wrong.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: