Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
Jan Hauke Rahm <email@example.com> wrote:
> Reading this (and following the idea of not introducing new stuff or
> archives but releasing faster) it sounds as simple as "testing needs
> to be more strict and rigorous in accepting packages to be *indeed*
> always in a seriously better shape than unstable so that releases can be
> done with shorter freeze times", right?
When testing was introduced, people moved from using unstable to using
testing to get the latest and greatest.
At that time, unstable was sometimes pretty wild, prone to serious
breakages way more often that today (be it after a release - which was
a horrible time, really - or during heavy development).
Also new users have a tendency to go with testing and don't use
unstable much these days.
The net effect is that there aren't enough people left using unstable
to uncover enough problems. Hence bugs silently make it to testing.
Being stricter wrt testing migration is hardly going to help. What
will help is having more people actually use unstable so bugs are
uncovered before they hit testing.
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169