Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
Didier Raboud schrieb:
> Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important
>> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected
>> from the unstable > testing > stable flow.
>> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're
>> just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time.
> Isn't there a need for a freeze+stabilisation time (~ a year for Lenny…) in
> which updates occur in 2 stages to finalize and "stable"ize one particular
> snapshot ?
I'm not sure what you're asking but by temporarily insterting a
$frozen-something between unstable and testing, we basically have the
same flow as currently just with the benefit of a living unstable. I
don't see the problem:
currently during the freeze:
unstable (frozen) > testing > stable
unstable || unstable (frozen) > testing > stable
> Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months.
Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a
problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to
a server-only distribution.
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org