Re: "testing" improvements
#include <hallo.h>
* Manoj Srivastava [Fri, Feb 28 2003, 08:12:20AM]:
> > 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?
Of course. You know what you are doing. There are lots of newbies they
are pissed by other distros, pissed by Woodys beeing-out-of-date so the
get the next branch seeming suitable for their needs and install it on
every machine, including servers and firewall machines.
Of course we can argument with RTFM, but they are a huge mass, not
reading docs or as few as needed.
> > 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?
It won't, that is why I say that we should give up the whole idea of
testing then. The reason why most people use testing and not Sid is
because of beeing safe, not having to deal with one-days critical Sid
bugs. If we can guarantee this for masses, they would say this mini-Sid
version.
What I would like is declaring severities:
- "grave" and "critical" as RC and testing-critical
- "serious" (including FTBFS and arch-specific bugs for non-i386 and
non-powerpc) as RC but not TC
Gruss/Regards,
Eduard.
--
Körperliche Anwesenheit ist keine Garantie für Geistesgegenwart.
Reply to: