[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#197049: ITP: conglomerate -- an XML editor for GNOME

On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:49:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:31:56 +0200 (CEST), Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> said: 
> > En réponse à Arnaud Vandyck <arnaud.vandyck@ulg.ac.be>:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> IMHO, unstable is a good place for it.  Upload Conglomerate in
> >> unstable and fill an RC bug "not usable at the moment" to be sure
> >> it will not go to testing, even if it's buggy.
> >>
> >> Everyone knows that unstable is not stable ;-)
> > BZZZT. Wrong. "unstable" means unstable packaging, not unstable
> > software. unstable is not for alpha/beta software except when there
> > is a stable version around (shipped as -snapshot packages).
> 	Hmm, no. I would not upload an alpha version of a software
>  package that is already in the distribution to unstable, since a
>  simple upgrade may damage a users installation. However, a totally
>  new package, unless it destroys unrelated data ort causes crashes,
>  would go into unstable, not experimental.
> 	Also, packaging is under my control. I never upload packages
>  without testing out the packaging -- and since I have packaged other
>  packages, the packaging is never going to be the reason to upload
>  into experimental. 
> 	Experimental is, in my eyes, reserved for software flakey
>  enough to destabilize the system, potentially destroy data or damage
>  other packages, of a experimental version of a package already in the
>  distribution. 

So it should be ok if i upload the package to unstable, even if the
package crashes often, and thus, since it is an XML editor, the user can
loose part of its work ?

At least i should add a warning in the long description then or
something such ?


Sven Luther

Reply to: