Re: For those who care about their packages in Debian
On 25/08/10 at 11:43 +0200, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On 25/08/2010 10:13, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Yves-Alexis Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> Hmhm, out of curiosity, why is t-p-u “way riskier”.
> > Mostly because there isn't any large pool of systems using t-p-u the way
> > there is for unstable,
> Yeah, good point.
> >> Would it be possible (at one point) to “fix” it and stop using unstable
> >> as t-p-u and experimental as unstable when freeze is in action?
> > We could try to get lots of people who normally use unstable to instead
> > test testing plus t-p-u, but I'm not sure they'd be willing to do so. I
> > for example don't want to switch my unstable systems to testing plus t-p-u
> > for a variety of reasons.
> I have a box running testing (well, not updated due to flaky net
> connection right now) which I really should pass on testing+t-p-u.
> But wouldn't CUT fit nicely there?
It depends on your definition of CUT.
If CUT is about snapshotting testing every 3 or 6 months and having
users use those snapshots, it won't help much with testing software in
the testing suite (because users would often be using older versions
that what is in testing).
If CUT is about having more users use testing itself, then t-p-u could
be enabled too, and it would help, yes.
(Disclaimer: in the discussion on the cut mailing list, I'm clearly in
favor of the second solution. And I have a pending action item to
summarize the discussion in a mail on -devel@ or -project@, so we can
discuss this in a larger forum. Help welcomed.)