On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 09:26:45AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > Rev. Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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" though. > > 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.
Description: PGP signature