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

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

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

Reply to: