Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Didier Raboud schrieb:
>> Bastian Venthur wrote:
>>> What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen,
>>> maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary
>>> and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go
>>> while all the new stuff can still go into unstable but cannot enter the
>>> next step while we're in the freeze:
>>>
>>> Normal:
>>>
>>> experimental || unstable > testing > stable
>>>
>>> Freeze:
>>>
>>> experimental || unstable || $something frozen > testing > stable
>>>
>>> Basicly we already have this with:
>>>
>>> experimental || unstable > testing > stable
>>
>> Something like
>>
>> experimental || unstable-be || unstable-pt > testing >> stable
>>
>> with:
>>
>> experimental Real
>> sandbox/playground/if-your-box-breaks-its-your-own-fault
>> unstable-be Bleeding-Edge Constantly updated to "newest upstream"
>> unstable-pt Pre-Testing Last "considered long-time and stable"
>> upstream
>> Bug-fixing, actual "unstable"
>> testing as actually Future Stable
>>
>> ?
>
> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important
> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected
> from the unstable > testing > stable flow.
>
> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're
> just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time.
Isn't there a need for a freeze+stabilisation time (~ a year for Lenny…) in
which updates occur in 2 stages to finalize and "stable"ize one particular
snapshot ?
Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months.
/me scratches head.
--
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −
http://www.swisslinux.org
Reply to: