Em Qua, 2005-08-10 às 15:12 -0700, Erik Steffl escreveu: > well, OK but _now_ the best option is unstable. All I was saying that > IMO developers would help a lot by not using "it's just unstable" as an > excuse to break it (or sort of break it, like jackd does). I was not > asking for unstable to magically become release quality. Let me repeat it: we don't break unstable on purpose. > why do you assume I don't know how debian release process works? Been > reading debian-devel and debian-users for few years now... Note that I > wasn't asking to change the development process, simply to acknowledge > that unstable is very useful to users and treat it as such, unless you > come up with something else that's recent enough (more frequent > releases, actually usable testing or something else). Most of us use unstable. Do you really think it's on our best interest to break it? It's just how things are. More than useful for users, unstable is useful for what it is for: doing development. Don't try to change that; this is not the problem, this is not the solution. > and I guess it will be repeated until debian (i.e. debian developers) > comes up with a solution. Perhpas the fact that this is being repeated > over and over means that it should be addressed? (well, maybe ubuntu or > other debian unstable based distro is the answer) Maybe... we're trying to get our release process have a sane timing; now, rehashing this kinds of non-issues doesn't help. See ya, -- kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov> Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part