Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:51:46AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Apart from any potential security issues and the installer, we could
release testing now. It wouldn't be very spectacular, but we could do it.
Are you sure? RC bugs are closed when a package enters *unstable* rather
than testing. How many RC bugs are there in testing? I dunno.
Development isn't stalled at all, you can keep doing whatever you like
and uploading it to unstable completely happily.
But packages in unstable just don't get the same level of testing that
they do once they hit testing. (I get a lot of bug reports for things
that are in testing but fixed in unstable, and I always get a lot of new
reports when something makes it from unstable to testing.)
No, we can say "let's release now" and people will discover that we
don't have an installer, and that we haven't managed to move sarge much
further along than woody was.
The installer issue is orthogonal (but does need to be addressed.) I'd
argue that we'd be better off with more frequent releases that don't
move things along all that much than with infrequent hugely dramatic
releases.
Mike Stone
Reply to: