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

Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem

On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 09:26:45AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Rev. Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > This is an interesting way to do it.  I have a better idea though.  =>
> > Urgency in the control file.  Urgency of most packages is low.  These
> > packages can be considered unstable perhaps a month.  If no "release
> > critical" bugs are outstanding on this version of the package (not
> > subversion) it can be moved to stable.  So my_package 1.4.2-1 has a grave or
> > critical bug in it.  Two weeks later, 1.4.2-2 fixes it.  In another 2 weeks,
> > it could go stable..  There might need to be some exceptions, but usually
> > the places exceptions are needed shouldn't be low urgency, hm?
> In what way would urgency be different from priority?

afaik, they're the same thing.  The entry in the control file is "Urgency"

> > The BIGGEST issue about any idea of the sort starting with mine, including
> > yours, and several others like it is this:  Can stable actually be kept
> > stable in a system like this or would compromises cause stability to go
> > down?  I think probably we could do it since hopefully the above suggestions
> > I made as for what it would take to get a package in to stable faster would
> > be policy.  Thoughts anyone?
> I think that if we decided we cared we'd do a lot about it.

I think this would be a better system than freezing unstable now and then
for testing and release because you wouldn't be trying to get EVERYTHING
updated and tested all the time.

Attachment: pgpRSNtVwFXdF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: