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

Re: splitting experimental by arch?

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> 	That's easy. Take deity. It is not dangerous, but it does not
>  do anything (yet) either, and ti definitely is not full funcionality
>  yet. It was put in experimental so that people could experiment with
>  it, and comment on the usability of the GUI.

Oops, left out useless.  [But I'd also be willing to argue that someone
who started using Diety in its current form will encounter a lot of
interface changes, and probably some danger before it's really ready
for prime time.
> 	The authors don't want any bugs reported on it, and definitely
>  do not want to feild questions about it on debian-user.

That's also an issue, true.  But I think that goes along with the
territory (e.g. dangerous, wild interface mods, and/or useless).

> 	Another example is an innocuous package that depends on
>  another (possibly dangerous) experimental package.

Good enough, that's contagion by association.

> 	Why this campaign against innovation in Debian? (and unstable
>  is really a release in the making, any innovation in there has to be
>  restrained and controlled).

This is not a campaign against innovation in Debian.  It's an attempt
to reduce confusion on the part of people who depend on us.  [You
seem to be saying that changing the name on that part of the server
wouldn't really accomplish this.  I dunno if you're right or not.]


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: