Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing
On Monday 22 December 2008 17:55, "Paul Wise" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing
> > stable.
> Freezing is the whole point of stable, if we didn't freeze it, it has
> no reason to exist.
In the current design "stable" means frozen.
The suggestion was that you have a branch named "stable" (which actually could
be given some other name) that consists of packages that have been
through "testing" and found to pass some criteria suggesting quality (in the
same way that "testing" has packages that have passed through "unstable"
after some days of delay without new versions).
Then the frozen branches would have some name other than "stable".
Basically it's a suggestion for two levels of "testing".
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog