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