Hi
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:48:39 am Holger Levsen wrote:
> 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...
So you suggest only changing the name? Are there any technical changes, like
packages get build in a sid chroot or sid d-i is used? Is the sync process
still the same (asking the ftpmasters)? These are IMHO the important
questions to ask, beside that we can name the suite in any way :)
Cheers
Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.