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

[Enrico Zini <enrico@debian.org>]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:

> I would do it differently. What about the following:
> 
> unstable base         unstable add-ons
>      |                       |
> testing base                 |
>      |                       |
> stable base            stable add-ons
> 
> The release would consist of a base system (or server system) with a 
> drastically reduced number of packages. The rest of the packages would 
> be assembled in parallel, going from unstable to stable as soon as 
> they're ready (i.e. not released all at once).

The selection of packages in the base system could come directly from
package priorities.

The good point of all this is that it would allow to have a unique,
fairly updated, stable core system upon which custom debians and derived
distros could be based.

> with the current stable release, and once tested and certified to work 
> (no large bugs filed against it), it would go into stable add-ons, so 
> current stable release users could upgrade their OO.o.

You are left with the problems derived by the interaction of different
"stable add-ons".  However, a testing with the full debian package set
would be the testing ground for them.

I can see the increasing difficulty of having a stable full-Debian, and
segmentations like this would seem am interesting direction to try.


Ciao,

Enrico