Re: A concrete proposal for rolling implementation
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Teodor MICU wrote:
> I've been disappointed at first to read that so many approve this
> "rolling" implementation that in fact is just "c-u-t", constantly
> usable testing ! Outside of the freeze period it doesn't really
> matter and one can say rolling==cut.
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:36:04AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On May 9, 2011 08:48:25 am Teodor MICU wrote:
> > To conclude, "unstable-next" suite (or some other name ) is a
> > requirement for "rolling" .
> ...unless the nature of experimental is changed, and its current function
> replaced with PPA's?
DEP-10 is focused entirely on how we can avoid and/or circumvent the
freeze process (for things not concerning the next stable release),
which is helpful by itself but also a key part of a working rolling
release, I'd say.
I'm trying to cover most of the ideas discussed in the previous mega-thread
for how this could be done, including both of the "unstable-updates" and
the "PPA's" approach, and maybe a couple more. I'm still putting meat
onto the document but in the next couple days I'll bring it back on list
for a more thorough discussion. So please keep any ideas you have about
either of these approaches readily available :)