Re: Linux 2.0.36 in slink?
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> --f2QGlHpHGjS2mn6Y
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 1998 at 06:28:54PM -0800, Kevin Dalley wrote:
> > We shouldn't encourage too many people to run pre-release, assuming
> > its stability is about the same as frozen's stability. The reason
> > frozen is not upgraded to stable is because it has not been tested.
> > In fact, the first few weeks after frozen is created, frozen is often
> > *very* unstable, with many broken packages upgraded regularly.
>
> The criteria for acceptance to a frozen pre-release would be "bug fix only
> updates that have already been tested in unstable for a week", or similar.
>
> Severe bugs, like dupload suddenly failing, should get caught after
> a couple of days in unstable -- so the ``*very*'' in the above should
> disappear.
The "*very*" may disappear, but running cleanly in unstable does not
guarantee running cleanly in frozen. The shared libraries may be
different, for example. That has occasionally caused us trouble in
the past.
This technique would probably make pre-release safer than frozen. A
site which is concerned more with stability rather being on the
leading edge may still prefer to stay with stable.
--
Kevin Dalley
kevind@rahul.net
Reply to: