Re: Upstream "stable" branches and Debian freeze
Hi, Olaf:
On Tuesday 01 February 2011 17:18:58 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> 2011/2/1 Jesús M. Navarro <jesus.navarro@undominio.net>:
> > So, may I propose (if not already done) a document that outlines with
> > enough detail what Debian maintenance policy is and why from an upstream
> > point of view, and then allow for within Stable upgrades for software
> > that has demonstrated to pursue the same standards as Debian? Kindof a
> > "quality seal" that will allow to push minor versions: it would mean
> > "more with less" since Debian maintainers wouldn't need to maintain their
> > own patch sets and they would know in advance what the "proper" version
> > to pack for Stable is (the one that upstream publishes for long term
> > maintenance within the time-frame for the new Stable version). For those
> > upstreamers interested in doing the things the proper way, they could
> > find Debian people to be knowledgeable and helpful about it (since
> > they've been doing it for years and it's in their own interest).
>
> It depends on the kind of package and computer whether it makes sense.
> For production servers, stability is (way) more important.
> For desktop users and packages like browsers, which might be fast
> moving, new features might be more important.
It depends more on the use case than in the package. As long as there's no
interface with externals/third parties it makes more sense add new
functionality only as needed, no matter if it's a kernel or a web browser.
> Upstream for Firefox and Chrome are not going to provide stable
> branches that are maintained for two+ years.
That's up to them and, in fact, it makes no difference: they won't get
the "quality seal" and their maintenance procedures within Debian will be
just the way they are now so no loss from this side.
On the other hand, each and every package that would go under the "quality
seal" umbrella would mean an easier day for the package maintainer, a higher
quality software for everybody and, on a side note, source of "unintended"
benefits for everybody (remember Mark Shuttleworth's interest on sincronizing
packages among distributions? It would be a natural outcome if a significant
number of upstreamers aligned to the "quality seal" idea: distributions
interested on stability would just converge around the long term versions
distributed by upstream).
Cheers.
Reply to: