Re: [email@example.com: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Le Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:23:17PM +0100, Mark Brown écrivait:
> at best. The overwhelming majority of my uploads are things that I
> consider ready to release - things like fairly small changes or widely
> tested upstream releases - and I see little to be gained over testing
> for them.
For such cases, you could directly upload to candidate... it would be
automatically added to unstable too if the version is higher than
the version in unstable.
Forgetting about updating candidate may happen, I can imagine that
you can be informed that a new version of your package is entering
testing, reminding you at the same time that you may want to "forward"
it to candidate.
> This distribution also have to handle dependencies in some fashion -
> even if you do something like allow source only uploads or provide
> readily accessible chroots uploading to candidate is always going to run
> the risk of breaking things. Look at what happens to testing every once
> in a while when a package introduces an undeclared dependency on a
> version of debconf that's still in unstable.
Unfortunately you'll never avoid all risks ... in the initial proposition I
made in my platform I added a fourth distribution which was testing-like
distribution running on "candidate" instead of "unstable".
It may have been even better, but since people are already telling that
it's going to use too much space, I forget bout it. :-)
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com