Re: Criteria for experimental uploads

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,

	I think that I view unstable as ``Beta'' software --
 certainly, it may have bugs, but if so these are to be reportede as
 such; and I, and others, do maintain our systems current with the
 latest betaunstable releases.

	I think we need experimental for packages that are just that
 -- thing which don't necesarily work, and only people who take their
 their system's well being in their own hands use that package
 (informally, if I test an experimental package, I enter into a
 dialogue with the author and supply feedback directly; I only do so
 for packages I'm intimately interested in). In other words,
 experimental is for Alpha packages, unstable is for beta packages,
 tested, and released stand for themselves.

	I also use dpkg -x to look at packages in experimental, (hence
 I only do it for packages of real interest to me); i definitely would
 not have the time to sped to examine packages in unstable on my
 tri-weekly updates. 

	I have used experimental for proof-of-concept packages until
 they actually start working to an extent that I would invote bug
 reports from a wider audience -- while they are in experimental only
 people keenly interested in tha package have taken a look at it and
 helped with the design.

	I plead that unstable is a label that was meant to warn the CD
 writers, and was meant to be beta software, and we keep it so -- and
 not throw it open to all comers, nor force alpha software in there,
 and destroy the resource of developers that upload from unstable.

	manoj
-- 
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .