Re: 3.0 (git) "experimental"
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
> Could the maintainers clarify what criteria are used to mark a given source
> format such as 3.0 (git) as "experimental"?
>
> It doesn't seem to be when the format was implemented or merged, or the
> amount of testing the format has had, since the git format seems as good
> or better than other non-experimental formats in those regards.
>
> I hope it doesn't come down to one member of the dpkg team's personal
> preference.
Well, I wrote the manual page, so it was my decision but I believe it's
backed up by my opinion and the one expressed by Guillem:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/02/msg00079.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2008/02/msg00017.html
I also didn't want to refuse merging the new source package format
because that's counter-productive: the concerns can be resolved/mitigated
over time, and giving them the same exposure means that other people
can discover them and maybe improve them.
Instead I chose to mark them as experimental to show that we don't believe
that they are ready to be used in large-scale (like, say, on ftp-master).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: