Re: Grades of stable-ness [was: GNOME --> potato: let's do it!]
James Mastros <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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, email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
Right. I only meant to emphasize that we need at least three levels
- The existing system with a semi-stable "unstable" repository
supplemented by projects/experimental and staging areas has worked
- 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.