Re: Why are new package versions depending on libc6 in unstable?
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:19:01AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:50:43AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >>"Steve" == Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net> writes:
>
> > Steve> Then perhaps it would help if there were some commonly
> > Steve> agreed-upon, objective criteria used to determine when a
> > Steve> package is ready for unstable as opposed to experimental?
> > Steve> (Projected number of RC bugs, optimal duration of transition
> > Steve> period, size of userbase...) This could at least help users
> > Steve> know what they're getting -- both in terms of how broken
> > Steve> unstable might be, and how out-of-date testing might be.
>
> > This is very hard, if not impossible, to determine a
> > priori. Unless someone hands me a crystall ball ;-)
>
> I'm not suggesting that this would be perfect, but right now, any
> inabilities to predict how stable a new package will be are compounded by
> the wide range of criteria developers use in deciding when to upload.
> Guidelines ought to at least give more consistent results.
I agree completely.
Yes, please use experemental more than it is now. It needs some publicity
on the web site, and in DWN whenever a package suitable for it is placed
there.
Reply to: