Re: Granual release proposal
#include <hallo.h>
Aaron Isotton wrote on Fri May 24, 2002 um 03:48:26PM:
> > look for conflicts/problems for some weeks. Remember - all packages
> > should be backwards comnpatible, so if something breaks, it is a general
> > quality problem and should be fixed anyhow.
>
> If you divide Debian into many sections which are upgraded more or
> less independently you don't have *a* new distribution, you have
> dozens. I don't see what a new 'rc' branch would be good for; isn't
> testing supposed to be used for what you said?
You do not understand. There won't be a dozen of distributions, there
will be one stable series of packages. This would be a mixture of
sections that were tested and became stable in their own.
> Too many branches also increase the time it takes for a package to get
> to stable.
Once again, there WOULD NOT be THE set of packages called "stable" that
won't be changed until the whole thing is released. Once a section has
passed it's internal testing period (in "testing" tree), the packages
are moved to "working". When they did really work without
release-critical problems in that "working" three, they are moved to
"stable" and we have a new Stable subrelease: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 etc. (Note
that I would really use the second number for that purpose - with the
speed of Woody release, we would have Debian 9 not before 2010.)
> > Keep dreaming. We need a real unstable tree to test new stuff. You
> > cannot cook on small flame for long time.
>
> Too big flames tend to burn things. If unstable were really unstable
> only few people would use it, and many bugs would move straight into
> testing.
He, I did not propose anything that would break the current
bug-filtering scheme.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -w -- sequences
$0=++$|;for(;;){print-length$0;$0=~s/(.)\1*/$1.length$&/ge;}print"\n";
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: