Re: Granual release proposal
#include <hallo.h>
Aaron Isotton wrote on Fri May 24, 2002 um 07:59:25PM:
> > > 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.
>
> I understand perfectly. But *now* there are exactly three
I do not speak about *now*. All this is for post-woody.
> distributions: unstable, testing and stable. Dividing Debian into
> sections that number will increase. Suppose some package not belonging
So you still do not undestand. The only additional distributions I want
is "working". Sections are merged into main stable when they have been
tested within the section and the compatibility with other stable
sections have been tested in "working". There would not be dozens of
"stable" distributions with different components, only one stable going
through subreleases.
> to 'sound' uses the sound architecture, and that between 'stable' and
> 'testing' of the sound section there is some major difference (like a
> new version, or whatever). I suppose the package maintainer would have
> to test his package against both sound sections. If a package has
> three or four such dependencies the testing becomes longer and longer.
Example please. Every package has to guarantee backwards compatibility.
Of course the packages have to be rebuilt when they are moved from
Unstable to Testing, and from Testing to Working, each time against the
build-dependencies in the lower (more stable) distribution. Do you
expect problems walking this path? If problems appear, that they have to
be fixed anyways.
> > 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.)
>
> I still don't see the need for a 'working' branch. Before having
Why not? It is to for the final testing of the release-candidating
section, to make sure that it does build with the stable parts and run
with the stable parts.
> passed preliminary testing a package goes into unstable. Then it moves
> into testing where it has to prove to be stable. Then it goes into
> stable.
Wrong. It does not go into stable, it works until thousands of other
package have become "stable" and the whole distribution is released.
> I don't understand what you mean. Maybe I was not clear enough. What I
> mean is this:
>
> If unstable is "really unstable", it will of course not work
> reliably. Nobody wants to use an unreliable OS; there is Windows for
Developers want. Most users (daily use) don't. And for production use,
there is stable. Too many people try to make the Unstable distribution
to something ready for daily use, without any risk, but with bleeding
edge software. This should not work this way.
> that. Thus it is good to keep unstable stable enough to be usable for
> day-to-day tasks, even if not for a server or something like
Unstable is unstable is unstable. Use Testing or (hopefully) working for
day-to-day tasks.
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
<CHS> argl bin i deppert
-- #debian.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: