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

Time to merge back ubuntu improvements!

Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about the 6 months release thing. Without further ado, here's the proposal pre-draft:

Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called usable or whatever name we find fit for it

stable <- <usable> <- testing <- sid

Migrate packages after a period* in testing without RC bugs.
*a 2-4 weeks seems reasonable to me

I cant recommend anybody that wants a reasonable up-to-date desktop and is technically-impaired to use debian because occasionally, it breaks badly. I can not but to redirect them to ubuntu. This has to change

In current state, stable has packages that are too old.
Testing, as usable as usually is, occasionally breaks. It broke 3 times more or less this year to me. These breakages render a poor desktop user experience.

Usable would be more "stable" than testing ("stable" meaning less bugs)
Usable would be less "stable" than stable ("stable" meaning it changes)

_Current half-backed solutions to this problem_:
The only ways to prevent this if you are running the more or less up-to-date testing are:
 * Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
    - Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how the pinning system works
    - Ineffective: its a matter of luck that the bug is found before you upgrade the package. In the worst case scenario, the package entered testing one second before you tried to upgrade and has not being broadly tested yet to find those pesky RC bugs.
    - Useless if you are trying to install a new package and the bug already hit testing

 * Stable backports: This is okay, but its manually done. Somebody has to be interested in the particular package and do it. One of the benefits of usable is that is automatically generated. Requiring less hand-made man labour in general. I guess It adds a little overhead for FTP masters.

Request for comments!

Reply to: