On 6/12/07, Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
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.
Exactly my point, again: Contributors and developers are using
unstable or stable more than testing. I would like to see a scenario
where we keep a lot of people using unstable with no automatic updates
to force them pick how and what much of that they want, but at the
same time use as base of their system testing. There's no better way
to make CUT a reality, IMHO. The two proposals (CUT and 'remove
experimental and change unstable to not automatic updates') aren't
mutually exclusive.
(...)
> 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.
I don't get it, as you also realized: unstable _is_ experimental. Let
us develop over testing with some pieces of unstable, no need to have
two experimental branches once we switch unstable to not automatic
updates.