Re: Grades of stable-ness [was: GNOME --> potato: let's do it!]

[ccwf@bacchus.com (Charles C. Fu)]

James Mastros <james@rtweb.net> wrote:
> I take this to mean that _active_, this-will-cause-breakage
> development should be in unstable....

> In any case, we all agree that the need for the staging area
> (whatever it is) is past....

> that there is an issue of staging areas at all means that we need to
> move to a three-level system

I, ccwf@bacchus.com (Charles C. Fu) responded:
>> I agree strongly [with the need for a three-level system]....

>> If ... unstable starts getting lots of software that breaks working
>> systems, I won't be able to continue using it.

Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net> writes:
> Actually, we have a semi-stable repository.  It's named "unstable".
> Stuff that Will Cause Breakage(TM) can generally be found in
> projects/experimental, or in other separate repositories (such as
> gnome-staging).

Right.  I only meant to emphasize that we need at least three levels
of stability.

- The existing system with a semi-stable "unstable" repository
  supplemented by projects/experimental and staging areas has worked
  pretty well.
- Renaming "unstable" to "semi-stable" and creating a new _really_
  unstable "unstable" repository would also be fine and would allow
  better management of the really unstable stuff.

However, simply abandoning staging areas and allowing
"this-will-cause-[major-]breakage" stuff directly into unstable would
not be fine.

-ccwf