Re: "testing" improvements
>>>>> In article <[🔎] 20030228083650.GA2321@zombie.inka.de>, Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> writes:
> And for all this developers around that may ask what I am talking
> about, ask yourself: do _you_ really use STABLE on your own
> machine?
My firewall and DMZ machines run stable.
> And would you? If not, why not?
Making assumptions, aren't you?
> Your plan _would_ work when we see Testing as a "pre-freeze" fork,
> similar to that unstable-freeze branches in "good-old-times". That
> is what I would also like to have - stop having
> "always-releaseable" testing branch and re-introduce something
> without this-days-sid-critical-bugs and beeing always ready to be
> frozen. But not to be frozen as "Testing" but as "Unstable" fork,
> completely detached since the last semi-transparent Freeze of
> Testing was not a great success.
My. All these convolution merely to mask our inability to
actually fix RC bugs in unstable. And much ado about nothing, it
seems, since I fail to see how something that is not supposed to have
sid's RC bugs and ready to be frozen would be any different from
testing in practice, apart from having a different name. Have you
actually thought this through?
manoj
--
Love conquers all things; let us too surrender to love. Publius
Vergilius Maro (Virgil)
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: