Re: [email@example.com: Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective]
Le Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 01:29:57PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen écrivait:
> yes, because we think that most of our packages are suitable for
> release. If you think it is unsuitable, then don't upload to
> unstable. Upload to experimental.
This is simply not true. You perfectly know that we upload many packages
to unstable which are not ready for release because they have no chance
of being so before several revisions.
Have you ever seen any XFree86 in its -1 revision being ready for
release ? We do not have the same criteria for "ready for release in
unstable" and "ready for a stable release".
> | - experimental is not autobuilded
> that can be changed just as easy as adding candidate.
I'm no more asking for a separate candidate distribution, I'm just
asking to use t-p-u/testing in a different manner.
> having t-p-u is not an argument against using experimental more.
Sure, but having experimental is not an argument against using t-p-u in
the way I propose. :-)
> not as a genereal «let's skip this unstable thing».
I'm not advocating to "skip unstable". The package certainly shouldn't
be uploaded to t-p-u without having the time to "mature" in unstable.
I'm just advocating that : "once the maintainer thinks his package is
ready to be released, he sould be able to send it in testing without
having to depend on dozen of other packages getting fixed while his
package work perfectly well with the versions that are in testing".
He would do that by uploading it to t-p-u (compiled against testing) and
by going through the "testing scripts" step.
The "testing scripts" step would be less of a pain, because the
dependencies are already in "testing" (unless you're doing a big
update like perl-5.8 of course) and thus you can only fail on the
"compile on all arches" or "no new RC bugs" criteria (but those two
criteria are under your own control, so that's ok).
> uhm, yes. You send stuff to end users (that is, what we release) if
> you upload to unstable. If you want to say «hey, this works (more or
> less) for me, but it might cause anything to happen if you try it, but
> feedback appreciated», then use experimental.
We certainly have several levels of "readiness" for our packages.
Otherwise, testing would be of no use if packages that we upload to
unstable are supposed to be ready for release ...
I don't buy your argument.
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com