[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Summary of CUT discussions

Hi Roland,

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Roland Mas <lolando@debian.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>  I'm fine with an incentive.  An official promise by the project that
> unstable and testing (or rolling) *will* be usable, on the other hand,
> makes me really nervous.

I recommend that you watch the BoF video, if you haven't already. Joey
explicitly states there that CUT will not be as stable as stable. You
can't obviously get the same stability as stable without all the
quality assurance and the freezes, not now at least.

>> 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.
>  Certainly.  And CUT is very probably going to be useful for them, just
> as testing can also be useful.  However, from what I understand,
> CUT/rolling is going to be basically testing plus chromium
> (oversimplified).  I'm completely fine with that, as it's just another
> suite that flows from unstable.  The problem arises from what we, as a
> project, tell the world CUT is.  If we want to call it “safe for many
> users” or “supported”, which is as far as I know its most important
> selling point, then we need to take out some packages.  I don't know how
> many, but at least some; fusionforge is admittedly pathological, but I
> wouldn't be surprised about other applications that use a database and
> need to care about data migration.  Wikis, webapps, ERPs, collection
> management stuff, that sort of thing.  Do we need those in CUT?  I don't
> know.  But CUT suddenly becomes testing plus chromium minus a number of
> packages.  If that still fits the goals of CUT, then by all means go
> ahead; I was just reacting to the stance that it's only a communication
> issue, because it clearly isn't.

CUT is not about providing the same level of stability of stable (not
in the short term, at the very least), so I don't really think this is
a problem.


Reply to: