Re: how about a real unstable?
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 09:09:43AM -0800, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> I know others have expressed this, but a big reason we wind up with slower
> release cycles is we have a stable unstable. i.e. unstable is rather
> stable. Most of the other distributions start with the software that will
> be released by the time they release and start working with it early.
>
> What I really mean: unstable should (as soon as work on potato is
> finished), have the new perl, xfree, apache, kernel, etc. Even if they
> are still release canidates. the sooner we have everything working with
> the new packages, the sooner we can release. For example, to wait till
> perl 5.6 is out to try to integrate it could take longer that to start the
> integration process with a perl release canidate.
>
> It is the unstable branch, lets take advantage of it and make it unstable
> to start out with. The sooner we can find problems and fix them, the
> shorter our release cycles will be, and the more upto-date our main
> packages will be.
This is what experimental is for, no?
Unstable is for unstable Debian, not necessarily unstable software. The
experimental distribution is much more appropriate for unstable upstream
software.
--
Elie Rosenblum That is not dead which can eternal lie,
http://www.cosanostra.net And with strange aeons even death may die.
Admin / Mercenary / System Programmer - _The Necronomicon_
Reply to: