[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: splitting experimental by arch?

On 1 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> Easier to have and use experimental, just in case.
> My thesis is that we do need three levels of instability:
>  stable (released)      : for the general public
>  unstable: (beta)       : for developers, beta testers, and adventurous users
>  experimental: (alpha)  : for people who are hacking the package
> I think a three level system like this has worked quite well for us in
> the past. Technically, an alpha testbed shall help us experiment with
> packages while they are in a state more unstable than the beta level
> unstable justifies.

i agree 100% with what you say here. this three level system HAS worked
for us up until now so why change it?

as it is now, unstable is safe enough for an intelligent adventurous
person to use - debian developer or not. it mostly works, and the bugs
are usually minor packaging bugs which don't make the system unusable.

if unstable becomes 'experimental' then it will only be usable by a
tiny percentage of debian hackers which will result in a much less
well-tested unstable...with the end result of a less well-tested (i.e.
lower quality) stable release.

> Why is quality of unstable such a novel concept?

it's not - we've had a high quality 'unstable' for most of debian's


craig sanders

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 .

Reply to: