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

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

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


       /        \
      /          \
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?


All of the above? I'm not real sure, I haven't fleshed out in my mind which packages would go where. I see the base system consisting of infrastructure packages that form kind of a base set of tools. Things that would cause mass breakage if updated regularly without a release process. So definately Perl. Add-ons would consist of desktop environment stuff, IM clients, games, e-mail clients, etc.

Joel Konkle-Parker
Webmaster  [Ballsome.com]

E-mail     [jjk3@msstate.edu]
Phone      [662-518-1636]

Reply to: