Re: custom vs. derivative
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:55:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Here is my view on the above, illustrated like the referenced text:
>
>
> unstable -> testing -> stable -> official stable release
> | | |
> | | +-> CDD_A stable -> CDD_A stable release
> | | |
> | | +-> CDD_B stable -> CDD_B stable release
> | | |
> | | +-> ...
> | |
> | +-> testing snapshot release
> | |
> | +-> CDD_A testing -> testing CDD_A snapshot release
> | |
> | +-> CDD_B testing -> testing CDD_B snapshot release
> | |
> | +-> ...
> |
> + -> CDD_A unstable -> unstable CDD_A snapshot release
> |
> + -> CDD_B unstable -> unstable CDD_B snapshot release
> |
> +-> ...
>
>
> The drawing intends to reflect current workflow of Debian itself:
> separates "stable" as distribution and as release, and adds testing
> release. CDDs pays full respect to Debian work by now distorting it:
>
> * What Debian consider testing is not promoted as stable by a CDD
>
> * What Debian consider unreleased (except through testing snapshots)
> is not promoted as released by a CDD
"testing" is tied up pretty closely to Debian's release cycles. The
quality and role of the testing distribution vary greatly in different
stages of the Debian release.
Maintaining this makes sense if you have many testers and a building
farm of your own. Smaller projects might find this workflow quite
cumbersome.
In fact, they would use "stable + backports" because you just can't wait
more than a year for a few very specific fixes to hit Stable, and you
can do the specific and focused QA on those backports.
--
Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen@xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com iax:guest@local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
Reply to: