Re: [email@example.com: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Le Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:20:18PM -0700, Ryan Murray écrivait:
> > 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?
Explain that to Joey who doesn't accept anything except security
updates. Don't rely on me for changing that though. :-)
And the "it" was referring to the possibility of updating XF4.1 in
candidate (supposed to be woody in that case) while having XF4.2 in
unstable and something else in stable ...
> 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
packages uploaded to t-p-u are built against which dist ?
> as few people have it in sources, so it's just like allowing untested
> uploads (much like your proposed "candidate" distribution).
Candidate is not for "untested uploads" even though "direct uploads" are
possible because some changes (eg documentation) may not need a complete
approval cycle, because some uploads are needed quickly (security
> 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
Yes and ? I was not suggesting to upload totally screwed uploads to
unstable ... i'm just saying that the sooner the package hits unstable, the
sooner we have a package ready (whatever is the status of the candidate dist
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com