On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11 October 2010 20:28, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:In <[🔎] AANLkTikwokFFMTyFHi-YY7J=_FX8_44wbCbU3VCC6Jxs@mail.gmail.com>, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss@iguanasuicide.net>wrote:It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better place.So why not create a better place?Because of the limited utility, which I mentioned in the message to which you replied. First, it only has any use during a freeze."Only" during a freeze ends up meaning "six months or longer". You think that's a short time? It's one full Ubuntu release cycle!
With releases once every (about) two years, that's about/at-least 1/4 of the time.
I give that (rough) figure to indicate that I agree with Jordi that during-the-freeze is actually a pretty large amount of time.
I'm not currently offering any proposals, just sympathizing. Sometimes you really feel that a new upstream release is better (alpine 2.02 is just bug fixes, none of which are release critical though, so alpine 2.00 is what we'll release with). But of course I might be wrong... but if I got alpine 2.02 into unstable despite the freeze, users would be able to test it and figure out that it's not any worse than alpine 2.00...
Oh, eek, actually, I did upload 2.02 into unstable, in violation of the freeze. I feel kind of bad about that.
Now I just feel kind of embarrassed and will go back to doing other things....
-- Asheesh. -- Tomorrow, you can be anywhere.