On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 06:46:31AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > We have experimental, though there is nothing in effect that prevents a > > maintainer to upload experimental packages to unstable atm... > Packages only in experimental are ignored by Release and Security, so that > would address part of my concern. (And I expect QA to mostly ignore them > as well unless nothing appears to be happening with them.) > I like the idea mentioned earlier in this bug of using experimental as a > place to put a package with known issues while those issues are tracked as > a compromise. I think a reject is better as a general policy for most > packages, but for controversial cases, using experimental to see if the > bugs really will be fixed may be a good idea. (For the record...) Given that there's no ACL preventing packages in experimental being uploaded to unstable, I don't think there should be a different standard for accepting NEW source packages into experimental vs. unstable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature