Re: Re Xemacs needs help
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:33:49PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote:
> All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to
> unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a
> stable Debian release.
Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on your arguments, but I think your
conclusion is bogus.
Emacs cvs snapshots _definitely_ belong in unstable, but I'm not sure they
belong in stable. Not because they aren't (usually) quite solid, but because
the advantage they have over released emacs versions -- frequent updates, and
the ability to reflect where emacs development is heading at the moment -- is
lost in stable.
IOW, unstable is _not_ just `stable to be' (though it's _mostly_ that).
Maybe permanent RC bugs an ugly mechanism to achieve this, but it works for
the most part; is there some way of marking such a bug so that it will be
obvious that it's not a `real bug' (and e.g. won't freak out people that are
obsessing over RC bug counts)?
[Experimental, in its current form, is basically a ghetto of sorts: not only
is it not auto-built, but people by and large don't use it unless they have
some special interest in a package which they already _know_ is in
experimental, and there's something of an expectation that packages there
have problems of one sort or another.]
Is it true that nothing can be known? If so how do we know this? -Woody Allen