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

Re: R 3.0.0 and required rebuilds of all reverse Depends: of R

On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 02:38:51PM +0300, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> It is not. You can't reasonably install things from experimental rather
> than unstable by default, nor is there a flag for "this really should be
> in unstable if not for badly managed release"

I'm getting rather annoyed by this accusations of a "badly managed
release", and the continual diatrade from yourself blaming me and the
rest of the release team.

> It is unreasonable to tell the users and upstreams that Debian is
> going to keep users on a known inferior version by default for a long
> time, just in case more testing is needed to discover problems in the
> release version (often in addition to multiple already discovered
> problems that Debian is intentionally leaving for users to suffer
> from, as the most natural way to fix them would be to update to a
> newer upstream version).

You may consider it most natural, the rest of the project values
stability and not introducing untested new features. Perhaps you may
feel more at home in a different distribution which aligns with your
priorities more.

As it happens, I'm currently canvassing a release weekend when everyone
who needs to do work on the day can make it. Messages such as the above
do not help in any way, shape or form.


Reply to: