Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem
On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 11:52:26PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
> The cause of many of our problems is that we strive to release a
> stable version of every package. Instead, we should have releases at
> preset intervals, say 4 times a year, of only parts of unstable.
> One month before the release we enter the freeze. At that time, a
> decision by the maintainer and the release manager is made for every
> package whether to release it. Only the selected packages are tested.
> If the testing team discovers a critical bug, the package is either
> fixed or it is dropped from stable. A critical bug rarely delays a
> release, because there is always the previous stable version of the
> package to fall back on.
> When releases are at regular, reasonably often, intervals, it is not
> as important if a package isn't ready for a release. The next release
> is only a few months later.
> A disadvantage of such a method is the need for more effort from the
IMHO, that method would be easier to follow if we divide "main" in "core"
and "non-core". That way, "core" packages will be the primary testing
target (we can't release a distribution without those packages, but
sometimes there are major transitions, like the current libc5->libc6 and
you can't fall back to the previous stable version). The "non-core"
packages would be a secondary target. Those that work would be
included, else they would be moved to the next release and the previous
stable version is used, as you suggest. (We can use any "optional"
libc5-based package with Debian 2.0, because we have such a good "core"
Enrique Zanardi firstname.lastname@example.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org