Re: unstable/testing/[pending/frozen/]stable
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Anyway, I'd like to ask you all to hold off the discussion for a few hours
> until everybody can read the summary of the CUT discussions and have a
> clearer ideas of the proposals and the implications.
hm... did you mean
http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/
"A constantly usable testing distribution for Debian"
[LWN subscriber-only content]
?
if indeed, taken on the reasoning that "testing" is a bad name and "rolling" is
better, then it goes similar to what I saw behind 'constatly present'
testing up to replacing rolling -> testing ->[removal of packages] -> frozen
now about 'pending': following description confused me quite a bit:
... during a freeze, testing is no longer automatically updated, which
makes it inappropriate to feed the rolling distribution. That's why rolling
would be reconfigured to grab updates from unstable (but using the same rules
as testing).
But unstable remains to serve as the entry point to feed frozen testing as
well, so with absent other entry-point (pending in my scenario) there is a
conflict -- I can't upload 1 version which I intend to get to frozen testing
and another one to get into rolling (experimental obviously can't serve as
such). or it all would go through an addendum (*-proposed-updates)?
--
.-.
=------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------=
Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com
Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192
Linux User ^^-^^ [175555]
Reply to: