Re: Ubuntu discussion at planet.debian.org
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 06:36:26 +0200, Jérôme Marant <email@example.com> said:
> Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 02:48:01PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>>> Joey Hess <email@example.com> writes:
>>> > When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the
>>> > problems was that many updates were blocked by that, and once
>>> > the freeze was over, unstable tended to become _very_ unstable,
>>> > and took months to get back into shape.
>>> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable
>> My guess is that the release team would go insane having to approve
>> every upload to unstable.
> I don't think so. Dinstall would reject any new upstream release.
> Approvals would only apply to t-p-u just like it is done currently.
Umm. So no new debian native packages? Even though those are
the ones we can best control? Also, this is a half-hearted
solution. There is often a poor correlation between bugs and new
upstream releases (in other words, I have screwed up packages in the
past with my debian revision uploads far worse than any new upstream
I still think you should look into testing-frozen and
candidate distributions, locking down testing-frozen, and working
towards improving candidate -- and that way, it is less intrusive,
we'll not have to scrap the current mechanism, and we can compare
both methods all at the same time.
But that involves getting down, rolling up your sleeves, and
doing _work_ -- rather than convincing other people to do it your
way. The former is more likely to succeed.
Do students of Zen Buddhism do Om-work?
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C