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

Re: [hertzog@debian.org: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 09:25:37PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Why should he? Any effort he spends on 4.1 now'll be wasted, because
> > it won't be included in any stable release, and takes time from him
> > perfecting 4.2. The X strike force homepage as location of unofficial
> > testing debs works.
> Now that woody is released, it's not useful anymore of course. But while

Then why do we even have a stable distribution, if the attitude of maintainers
is that work on keeping it maintained is not useful anymore?

> With candidate, he could have uploaded XF4.2 into unstable sooner while
> still having the possibility to finalize XF4.1 for woody ... and at the

I think what people are missing here is the existance of a working
testing-proposed-updates suite, which we didn't have with autobuilder
support until very close to release time.  I don't see any gains of
an entire new distribution and its mirror load vs. using t-p-u.  There is
no automatic propogation from t-p-u to testing proper, but something could
be done for that, if people can come up with reasonable criteria for
it.  The whole problem with this is that no one tests what's in t-p-u,
as few people have it in sources, so it's just like allowing untested
uploads (much like your proposed "candidate" distribution).  I think this
is a really bad idea.

> present time we'd have XF4.2 ready instead of still waiting on it
> because it has not been tested enough.

unstable has it's name for a reason.  Many people don't seem to understand
that, and remain calm when everything blows up around them.  Instead they
send a screaming rant of a bug report with high severity, which makes the
maintainer not want to treat unstable as what it's description says it

Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org)
The opinions expressed here are my own.

Attachment: pgpEE88MSSuca.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: