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

Re: The stable/testing/unstable branches not a solution ?

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:59:42AM +0000, Magosányi Árpád wrote:
> I think that this conception in itself is just a workaround of the
> fact that the release cycles are too long. If they were shorter, then
> we would not have a very old stable. 


> A solution to this could be a For-release: control field containing
> the code name of the future release where one wants it to be included.
> This means that the code name and the release goals of the release
> should be undetachable (this not means that changing the details of
> the release goal is prohibited), but the sequence of them is still
> open to discussion.  The automatisms could decide based on this header
> on which package goes into the release candidate.

Nice idea.  Very forward-thinking, and fairly elegant in that it could
fit nicely with BTS and buildd's.  If we couple this with starting the
NEW release cycle IMMEDIATELY following the release of the CURRENT
"stable", we might have a swift-moving distribution.  Wouldn't that be a
welcome change!?

Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net>           http://www.wookimus.net/
           assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: