Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Suggestion: Skip Slink!
- From: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 21:13:31 -0600
- Message-id: <19990105211331.B11261@neuromancer.@>
- Mail-followup-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Reply-to: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.03.9901050909320.5281-100000@tx>; from Brandon Mitchell on Tue, Jan 05, 1999 at 09:25:07AM -0500
- References: <19990105005011.A9666@neuromancer.@> <Pine.LNX.4.03.9901050909320.5281-100000@tx>
On 05-Jan-99, 08:25 (CST), Brandon Mitchell <bhmit1@CS.WM.EDU> wrote:
> Making a restriction that a maintainer cannot upload a *package* to
> unstable until all release critical bugs on that *package* are closed
> would make sense. Expanding this to "a maintainer cannot release an
> unstable version of package A until their release critical bugs on their
> package B are fixed" would be a bad thing IMHO.
That's not sufficient, though. "I don't want to deal with this
complicated bug on package A, so I'll play with this cool new stuff on
package B." And it's not only a maintainer's own packages; I'd like to
encourage "Gee, I can't show off my cool new package of foo until slink
is released -- maybe I'll fix a few of these bugs that these other bugs
to push the process along", or " -- I might as well test the boot disks
(or X, or whatever)".
The other point (which is probably more insideous) is to keep people
from building packages for frozen with libraries from unstable (which
they installed so they could play with other stuff from unstable).