Re: splitting experimental by arch?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:
> That's easy. Take deity. It is not dangerous, but it does not
> do anything (yet) either, and ti definitely is not full funcionality
> yet. It was put in experimental so that people could experiment with
> it, and comment on the usability of the GUI.
Oops, left out useless. [But I'd also be willing to argue that someone
who started using Diety in its current form will encounter a lot of
interface changes, and probably some danger before it's really ready
for prime time.
> The authors don't want any bugs reported on it, and definitely
> do not want to feild questions about it on debian-user.
That's also an issue, true. But I think that goes along with the
territory (e.g. dangerous, wild interface mods, and/or useless).
> Another example is an innocuous package that depends on
> another (possibly dangerous) experimental package.
Good enough, that's contagion by association.
> Why this campaign against innovation in Debian? (and unstable
> is really a release in the making, any innovation in there has to be
> restrained and controlled).
This is not a campaign against innovation in Debian. It's an attempt
to reduce confusion on the part of people who depend on us. [You
seem to be saying that changing the name on that part of the server
wouldn't really accomplish this. I dunno if you're right or not.]
--
Raul
--
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: