Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On 6/12/07, Luk Claes <email@example.com> wrote:
Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Hi Luk,
> On 6/12/07, Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Gustavo Franco wrote:
>> > * Switch unstable (release) for not automatic updates
>> They are only automatic as far as the Release Team wants them to be as
>> explained earlier...
> I'm not writing about "automatic" transition from unstable to testing
> through scripts. It was about the Release file. It's pretty much the
> key of that proposal and why I've suggested remove experimental,
> because in a scenario that we switch unstable to not automatic,
> experimental will be redundant.
Ok, I misunderstood what you meant. Making unstable not automatic would mean
less testing of individual versions in unstable AFAICS which is a bad thing IMHO.
I disagree, that's what we've with experimental today mainly due to
the fact that there's just a few packages there. Consider everybody
uploading every package for unstable instead.
>> > The benefit of the approach above from a RM point of view is that we
>> > have more eyeballs over testing and it doesn't mean that we will
>> have less
>> > people using unstable pieces.
I'm not at all sure that it means we won't have less people using unstable,
even more every version that is uploaded to unstable...
I believe that people will use testing as base for contribute and
develop using lots of packages from unstable, differently from what
we've with experimental as outlined above.