On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 09:29:40PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote: > > I personally think that the stable-testing-unstable spread really gives > > us quite good coverage for meeting the diverse needs of our users. If > > you want the cutting edge, use unstable. If you need something that's > Except that some people keep the cutting edge out of unstable for > various reasons. Then perhaps it would help if there were some commonly agreed-upon, objective criteria used to determine when a package is ready for unstable as opposed to experimental? (Projected number of RC bugs, optimal duration of transition period, size of userbase...) This could at least help users know what they're getting -- both in terms of how broken unstable might be, and how out-of-date testing might be. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgphRnru85c_g.pgp
Description: PGP signature