Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 08:02:53AM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 6/12/07, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:40:54PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> >> >* What do you mean by "switch unstable automatic nature to not
> >> > automatic"
> >> In a few words, move the 'NotAutomatic: yes' from experimental to
> >> unstable and burn experimental.
> >So in your opinion, the glibc maintainers should upload glibc 2.6-0exp2 to
> >unstable?
> Today, no? In a new scenario where unstable isn't automatic? Yes.
ITYM "in a scenario where we stop bothering to use britney for modular
transitions into testing because it no longer works, and we replace it
instead with a periodic forklift copy from unstable to testing with all bugs
and all installability problems caused by builds, and while we're at it
let's go back to causing it "frozen", HTH HAND.
> >Shall we try it and see whether all the release team quits in frustration
> >and disgust, making lenny's release cycle the longest ever?
> FUD.
My bad, let me try to eliminate the uncertainty: you're designing in a
vacuum, you haven't bothered to inform yourself how testing works and
therefore have failed to understand the consequences of your proposal in
spite of my efforts to hint you in the right direction, and it's a dumb
idea.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: