[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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: