Roland Mas wrote: > At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less > pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a > moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support > upgrades from any version younger than X months (as has been > suggested). This is not something that I can currently support, and > it shouldn't be something that “we” can claim to support because that > would be a lie. And if, as a maintainer, I'm told by whatever > powers-that-be that I need to care for this use case from now on, I'm > not likely to take that with a smile. Well, we know that fully 27% of popcon-reporting users already use unstable or testing. So in general, developers already have an incentive to keep unstable and testing usable for those users, not just stable. There are always going to be special cases, like gforge/fusionforge, which I assume is what you're specifically talking about. http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=gforge-common+fusionforge-standard+fusionforge-minimal+fusionforge-full&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 If I'm reading this graph right, there are roughly no users of fusionforge yet. Obviously it doesn't make sense for you to spend time on unstable-to-unstable upgrades. I wouldn't be at all surprised if CUT ended up being mostly used for desktop systems, and not for servers, since the desktop is exactly the area where rolling releases with constant shiny stuff and new hardware support is most needed. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature