Re: Proposed change to debian release system
Hi,
I think a problem is the difference between stable software and stable
distro... i.e.: perl 5.8 is the stable release of perl, but it isn't
into the stable distro, because managing a distro to be stable requires
packages not to being upgraded...
I think the idea of the "Current" release would be good if it is
automatic, just like testing... but that would require maintainers to
inform the upstream status (unstable/stable) of the software and a
dynamic distro with all the software that is upstream-stable would
fit... I don't know if this is too hard to do, but certainly It would be
nice to people that doesn't like to have unstable software, but like
having recent software...
In this way, "Current" would be never released, but would have the most
recent "stable" software (but it wouldn't be a stable distro after all).
Em Sáb, 2003-12-13 às 19:41, Henning Makholm escreveu:
> Scripsit Arnaud Vandyck <avdyk@debian.org>
> > Scott Minns <sm302@soton.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > > Stable - released when the software is rock sold and very mature
> > >
> > > Current - This is software that has been in testing for six months and
> > > experienced no critical bugs, floors or dependency
> > > problems. A new version is released every six
>
> > This is nearly impossible. I don't know if other developers will agree
> > but IMHO, it's like having two `stable' releases!
>
> I concur. In particular, the process is already such that if we get
> even near something that fits this description of "current", a big
> party will be thrown and that something will be frozen to become the
> next "stable" within a short timeframe.
>
> Everybody seems to agree that new stable versions *should* be out
> about every 6 months. The problem of getting testing into a freezeable
> state is not going to go away simply by calling the goal "current"
> instead of "stable".
>
> --
> Henning Makholm "What has it got in its pocketses?"
Reply to: