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

Re: An old idea, brought back to life



On Mon, Dec 21, 1998 at 11:12:05PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Essentially prerelease == unstable without the larger instabilities.
> This remark almost forces one to think of another system: keep the
> current release system, but put a small layer between Incoming and
> unstable, where recently uploaded package are. Only when nobody
> complains about those within a certain timelimit (2 weeks? a couple of
> days might not reach all mirrors) will they be moved into unstable.
> Basically a sort of public Incoming with a Packages file for dselect and
> apt.

This is much the same as the above proposal. Essentially, if you follow
through that idea, you end up with thoughts like:

	* if we want to let people test it easily, then we may as well
	  make it essentially just another distribution, with sources,
	  and different architectures, and Packages files, and Release
	  files, and what have you.

	* when we start freezing, we could crete YA distribution,
	  or we could simply be more conservative about moving
	  packages from this buffer area to unstable.

Or, at least, those are the sorts of thoughts I had.

The other more major question was what should be done to ease the strain
on mirrors when every package essentially needs to be mirrored twice:
once in this buffer area (unstable in the language of the proposal),
and once in unstable (prerelease in the language of the proposal). This
was the major reason for the whole package-pool and symlinks split up.

Or did I miss an important distinction in the above?

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: pgpxbYCxYfJ6D.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: