Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Franco:
> On 6/12/07, Frans Pop <email@example.com> 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
This means uploading of VCS snapshots to unstable, making all unstable
users to snapshot testers (see e.g. glibc 2.6 snapshot in experimental).
IMHO this is not a good idea. The only ways to workaround this are IMHO:
(A) Allow direct upload into testing. That means, testing users are not
longer protected against possible serious issues, that would have been
normally detected during 10-days-period in unstable. Or (B) rename such
packages, so you can have the "stable" and the "development" branch of a
package side-by-side in unstable. The latter may work sometimes, but it
can also be a horrible situation for the maintainer.
But in every case, you will not longer have a branch for testing of
packages, "that are quite probably broken in some ways, but the
maintainer still would like to see tested". The choice only is: Upload
such a package to replace a (very probably) stable and tested branch or
don't upload it at all.
I cannot see any advantage.