Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Russell Coker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Monday 22 December 2008 17:55, "Paul Wise" <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing
>> > stable.
>> Freezing is the whole point of stable, if we didn't freeze it, it has
>> no reason to exist.
> In the current design "stable" means frozen.
> The suggestion was that you have a branch named "stable" (which actually could
> be given some other name) that consists of packages that have been
> through "testing" and found to pass some criteria suggesting quality (in the
> same way that "testing" has packages that have passed through "unstable"
> after some days of delay without new versions).
> Then the frozen branches would have some name other than "stable".
> Basically it's a suggestion for two levels of "testing".
The thought of a rolling release system has a lot of appeal to me for
desktop usage, but not for server usage, since each update contains
the potential to break things. It might be worth investigating into, I
know such infrequent releases makes using RELEASE-backports, or
running testing becomes almost essential if you want updated tools.
> http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
> http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com