Re: splitting experimental by arch?
>>"joost" == joost witteveen <email@example.com> writes:
joost> In an attempt to save the world from disaster, Guy Maor wrote:
>> I once tried to propose one simple rule that a package can't go to
>> experimental unless there's already a version of it in unstable. I
>> was extremely surprised at the very negative reaction, and I backed
joost> Oh, that surprises me. I remember you posting that rule, but
joost> always assumed that it was `your final word', and didn't even
joost> realised a discussion followed:). I actually liked that simple
joost> rule. (I like simple things that I can remember -- there seem
joost> to be so little of those around any more).
In that case, there should be an audit process in place and
packages placed in unstable should never automatically be headed for
stable, despite not having any bug reports filed.
If I have a package that is not yet production quality, it may
have bugs (that destroy your file system, for example), but I need to
distribute it so a few people with their eyes open can critique it
and help fix any bugs, I distribute it to experimental.
That, in my opinion, is what the distribution is for.
The opposing argument is that this is a new package, and if
people load it, it is caveat emptor.
I disagree. Packages in stable should be tested and be close
to production quality. If the package is experimental in the authors
eyes, it should not be handed to users even if we know of no bugs
This is a quality of distribution issue.
I think this well may be the time to diffrentiate experimental
by architecture, though.
His heart was yours from the first moment that you met.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .