[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur wrote:

> 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
> new:
> unstable || unstable (frozen) > testing > stable



Which needs update and clarification…

>> Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months.
> Is that important?

No. But if Debian was to adopt the same Release Process as Ubuntu, why not
joining forces, entirely ?

I ''guess'' that it wouldn't be the "fun in Debian"…

> 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.

100% ACK.

My feeling is that a release per sub-system [0] could be viable and could
make Debian a really dynamic and up to date distro, but adding a repository
between Sid and Testing is a good way to go.

Best regards,


[0] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleasePerSubsystem
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −

Reply to: