Hello Raphael, On Tue 02 Nov 2021 at 08:31AM +01, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But >> becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present >> might also be good for our project. > > Maybe, maybe not. What are you basing your assertion on? > > From my (limited) point of view, Debian testing/unstable is used by many > derivatives because it's largely usable and stable, and we do get many > contributions due to this. > > I for one contribute many fixes to Debian because Kali is built on Debian > testing. At some point it was based on Debian stable and I was largely not > able to contribute to Debian, and if we did break testing/unstable more > often, the net result would likely that Kali would switch back to stable. > > I don't really see any scenario where breaking unstable/testing helps us > in any way. Except if the breakage is really limited in time, and if the > breakage does not affect upgrade paths, etc. But then I would no longer > call that "breaking unstable/testing". Thank you for bringing up derivatives, that's important. The sort of situation I have in mind is where avoiding breaking unstable results in a highly complex, drawn out and demotivating process, as compared with just breaking unstable. As we are mostly volunteers, these sorts of considerations matter more than they might in other organisations. Thus, I am wary of categorically ruling out breaking unstable as one of our options. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature