Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
w
>> I think it would be marginal. After all, the experimental
>> distribution does exit for this purpose and nonetheless, people do
>> not neglect unstable.
>
> I do not think you understand what the experimental
> distribution is, and how it is different from unstable, if you can
> say that. (not a full distribution, contains truly volatile packages,
> not supported by buildd's, for a start).
Yes I do. Experimental is not really a "distribution". It is a repository
you cherrypick packages from. And packages are usually built against
unstable packages.
>> Before "testing", the RM used to freeze unstable and people were
>> working on fixing bugs. There were pretest cycles with bug horizons,
>
> Not true. People were mostly twiddling their thumbs. Only a
> small subset of people can actually help in fixing RC bugs.
Are you talking about skills?
>> and freezes were shorter. Of course, without "testing",
>> synchronizing arches was a pain, that's why I'd say let's combine
>> both.
>
>> Instead of always telling than a given idea won't work, let's try it
>> and conclude afterwards.
>
> We have tried the whole freezing route. But feel free to try
> it out (like aj did Testing), and tell us how it would have worked.
The difference is that I don't want to throw Testing out.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: