On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:45:16PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > > > mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in > > > unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed > > > 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? > > > > Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is > > *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to > > push the distro as a whole forward. > No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to > unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short > period. And it would be best that you could "prove" that it's > ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. > I really think that anything with has a alot of reverse > dependencies (let's say 10 or something), should be uploaded to > experimental before doing any kind of transition I disagree. > and should contact the release team that they plan to do so. I can agree with that, though. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature