Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 6/12/07, Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:
On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:40, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > * What effect do you think removing experimental will have on
> > unstable? * How do you think it will have that effect?
> >
> I think it will have a positive effect if we add 'NotAutomatic: yes'
> into unstable release file.
Are you also willing to promote uploading packages "that are quite
probably broken in some ways, but the maintainer still would like to see
tested" to unstable?
Promote 'quite probably broken in some ways' stuff isn't the motto.
Upload everything that we've in experimental actually seems to be more
appropriate.
I don't think I would like that at all! An essential difference between
unstable and experimental is that unstable has "should be working"
packages, while experimental has "quite likely still has issues"
packages.
If experimental were dropped, how the hell am I supposed to distinguish
between the two?
That's the point, you would be using testing for development and
cherry picking changes from unstable manually. Remember that in this
scenario we still have unstable to testing transition so if you don't
push stuff manually it will get there anyway, probably the second step
would fine tune the unstable to testing metric but RM team already has
some ideas on this camp as Luk pointed out.
Personally I think the current system is fine. I certainly don't think I
would like the hassle of having to decide for myself (based on no
available information) if I should upgrade a package or not. For me, the
only reasons _not_ to upgrade a package in unstable are:
As i wrote above you don't need to decide from a user point of view,
considering that the testing scripts sooner or later will do that for
you, of course a lot of people will push the latest GNOME, whatever
from this new unstable to user over testing and then I believe it will
help our next release.
(...)
regards,
-- stratus
http://stratusandtheswirl.blogspot.com
Reply to: