Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 6/12/07, Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Joey Hess <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> > Do you think that the numbers are positive in terms of testing usage,
>> > really? I see the numbers even if not that reliable as proof of my
>> > argument that just a few (almost half if compared with unstable) bug
>> > reporters are actually using testing.
>> > Not better numbers, but statistics: x% of developers are using foo
>> or bar.
>> For testing to remain at a good quality level, there needs to be a large
>> group of people using (and testing) unstable. That nearly 2x as many
>> bugs are filed from unstable as from testing indicates to me that a
>> healthy number of people are using unstable.
> Exactly my point, again: Contributors and developers are using
> unstable or stable more than testing. I would like to see a scenario
> where we keep a lot of people using unstable with no automatic updates
> to force them pick how and what much of that they want, but at the
> same time use as base of their system testing. There's no better way
> to make CUT a reality, IMHO. The two proposals (CUT and 'remove
> experimental and change unstable to not automatic updates') aren't
> mutually exclusive.
>> > Exactly the first proposal, remove experimental and upload everything
>> > to unstable with the difference that unstable will become not
>> > automatic as experimental is today. Keep migration from unstable to
>> > testing as it's and that's it.
>> Making apt not automatically upgrade to newer versions from unstable
>> doesn't seem useful. It's useful in the case of exeperimental because
>> any given user of experimental only wants to pull a few packages from
>> it. Most users of unstable want to pull _all_ available updates from it.
> I don't get it, as you also realized: unstable _is_ experimental. Let
> us develop over testing with some pieces of unstable, no need to have
> two experimental branches once we switch unstable to not automatic
unstable is meant for packages that should be in the next stable release, as
such only packages that are in the maintainer's opinion ready to migrate to
testing should be uploaded to unstable.
experimental is playground, uploading packages to experimental if one is not
sure they are good candidates for testing is what people should do.
I believe we all know and read the official documents we can diverge
about how people are actually using the branches, but that's not the
I don't get it at all why removing experimental would bring us anything but a
more experimental unstable...
Sure, a more experimental (and not automatic) unstable and heavily
used testing from where we do main development and could generate CUT