Gustavo Franco wrote:
> Do you think that the numbers are positive in terms of testing usage,
> really? I see the numbers even if not that reliable as proof of my
> argument that just a few (almost half if compared with unstable) bug
> reporters are actually using testing.
>
> Not better numbers, but statistics: x% of developers are using foo or bar.
For testing to remain at a good quality level, there needs to be a large
group of people using (and testing) unstable. That nearly 2x as many
bugs are filed from unstable as from testing indicates to me that a
healthy number of people are using unstable.
I'd be happy if there were an even larger number of users happily using
testing, without encountering and filing a lot of bug reports. As seems
to be to case with stable[1]. The number of bug reports filed from testing
actually seems high to me. Although it's hard to say without more
analysis (perhaps looking at the severities of those bugs).
> Exactly the first proposal, remove experimental and upload everything
> to unstable with the difference that unstable will become not
> automatic as experimental is today. Keep migration from unstable to
> testing as it's and that's it.
Making apt not automatically upgrade to newer versions from unstable
doesn't seem useful. It's useful in the case of exeperimental because
any given user of experimental only wants to pull a few packages from
it. Most users of unstable want to pull _all_ available updates from it.
--
see shy jo
[1] We know from popcon that currently three times as many users use stable
as unstable+testing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature