Re: how about a real unstable?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Lenharth <email@example.com> writes:
Andrew> It is the unstable branch, lets take advantage of it and make it unstable
Andrew> to start out with. The sooner we can find problems and fix them, the
Andrew> shorter our release cycles will be, and the more upto-date our main
Andrew> packages will be.
Two reasons why this is generally not a good idea:
+ I'd guess for many developers their working machine is also their
development machine. So, if they can't run unstable (because it
is) on their working machine, they can't run unstable, period.
Which would likely cause them to have to quit...
+ What if the release candidate of, say, perl 5.6 is *still* a
release candidate when *we* want to release? Because we'd have
adapted the whole system to perl 5.6... we couldn't release until
5.6'd be stable.
This would cause us to be tied to the release schedules of
external projects. Which'd be a bad thing.
On the other hand, Debian's already working like that *in some
areas*... like, for a long time the `zsh' package was the unstable
development version; it still is, but there's a zsh30 package which
contains the stable release.
What I mean is: we can *start* integration of unstable packages
early... but we cannot tie the system to these unstable releases, we
still have to build on the stable releases.
All this depends on the respective maintainers ability (mostly in
terms of time available) and willingness to do the work, that's about
all there is to it...
Jürgen A. Erhard eMail: firstname.lastname@example.org phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard
George Herrimann's Krazy Kat (http://www.krazy.com)
"Windows NT" is an acronym for "Windows? No thanks." -- Russ McManus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use Mailcrypt and GnuPG <http://www.gnupg.org/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----