Re: splitting experimental by arch?
[please cc: responses to me, as I'm only subscribed to debian-devel-digest]
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:
> Easier to have and use experimental, just in case.
>
> My thesis is that we do need three levels of instability:
> stable (released) : for the general public
> unstable: (beta) : for developers, beta testers, and adventurous users
> experimental: (alpha) : for people who are hacking the package
hmm, this seems similar to what I was proposing. That we should have 3
distributions, 1) which is stable 2) which has frequent updates on programs,
bug fixes, but the packages aren't being hacked on to change the way they
work, such as what is going on with emacs and 3) an alpha distribution,
which the packages can get actively hacked on, and possibly be made
incompatable with the other packages a user has on his system. In my view,
I wanted us to aim "alpha" at being the next major release, and the "beta"
or unstable as being minor releases and "point-updates".
>
> I think a three level system like this has worked quite well
> for us in the past. Technically, an alpha testbed shall help us
> experiment with packages while they are in a state more unstable than
> the beta level unstable justifies.
We haven't really fully implemented something like this. Even though we
have experimental, packages are only their, when they themselves might be
buggy, but we haven't really viewed it in how they effect the rest of the
system.
just my views,
Shaya
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: