On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 03:39:42PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:01:34PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 05:43:48PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > > And that's exactly the problem. In the past, the testing distribution was > > > > just unstable. At the moment, the unstable distribution is just testing. > > > > The problem is that you can't put a new version in unstable and still fix > > > > the version in testing. With a testing-updates, only used for RC bugfixes, > > > > this wouldn't be a problem. > > > And who is going to test these testing-updates packages before they are > > > allowed into testing? > > People who are testing unstable and/or testing at the moment. > How are people running unstable going to get them if they are older than the > version that is in unstable? And what incentive does anyone have to run > testing + testing-updates? People who want to do Debian QA are already > running unstable, and those who want new packages with reduced risk are > running testing or a mixed system. > A testing + testing-updates system would give the worst of testing and > unstable: possibly broken packages that lag behind unstable. All software is possibly broken; whether we call it stable or testing or unstable doesn't matter, except to adjust the odds a little bit. If we can't trust maintainers to use enough care when uploading to woody-proposed-updates that the odds still come out in our favor, then you're right that testing is a bad idea. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that maintainers can't be trusted to use woody-proposed-updates properly. I suppose we'll never know for sure if no one ever implements it, though. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp0yQiLYQuO8.pgp
Description: PGP signature