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
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.