Hi,
I wonder^wthink we should fix the mistake of using ${next_codename}-test
(etch-test, lenny-test...) now when we upgrade dak.
It causes problems and confusion, without any benefit as far as I can see.
Petter just said on IRC because its less confusioning to be able to say "i've
uploaded to lenny-test" (or sid - instead of having two sids) but I dont see
this point, as one can equally non-confusingly say "i've uploaded to debian"
(or debian-edu).
I think it's beneficial to also upload to sid and to test in sid and to
migrate from sid to lenny just as in debian, because we also plan to release
with/as lenny. So IMO we should have the same distribution names to develop
for this release.
Also as said on IRC, I dont see the advantages of using lenny-test at all. If
we want to move our packages to (our) lenny faster than in Debian, we can
move them from our sid to our lenny as fast as we want, so what's the point
of calling this lenny-test?
And for pure testing, it doesn't matter if the image is called sid or
lenny-test..
As said, I dont see the point in using lenny-test, I only see potential
problems with it and advantages with using sid. So please explain...
regards,
Holger
"P.S./BTW:" my current idea for lenny stable maintaince is, to do point
releases from our archive. That is, we release 4.0r0 with exactly the same
packages as Debian (with additional/new Debian Edu installation media from a
Debian POV) and then we divert again and do pointreleases (r1, r2) as we,
Debian Edu, fit. And then, we release lenny+1.r0 together again... and so on,
happily ever after ;-)
Attachment:
pgp7udTKzgAfq.pgp
Description: PGP signature