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

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 09:53:16AM -0600, Joel Konkle-Parker wrote:
>...
> >
> >          unstable
> >         /        \
> >        /          \
> >desktop-testing     testing
> >       |            |
> >       |            |
> >desktop-stable      stable
> 
> 
> I would do it differently. What about the following:
> 
> 
> unstable base         unstable add-ons
>      |                       |
>      |                       |
> testing base                 |
>      |                       |
>      |                       |
> stable base            stable add-ons
>...
> The server systems that require consistency in their environments would 
> simply use the base system, which would consist of the basic 'server' 
> packages.

What's a "basic 'server' package" that wouldn't be updated for a long 
time in your scheme?

Perl?
PHP?
SpamAssassin?

> Joel Konkle-Parker

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed