Re: Keep non-gnome2.6 package out of the discussion please [was: GNOME 2.6 definitely not ready for unstable]
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 12:57:01PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> However, from an end-user's point of view, something that requires
> upgrading core components from a newer release, IS related to that new
> thing, because it requires upgrading something else besides the
> application itself.
So we all agree it was a mistake. However, from the end-user's point of
view, they won't even realise they need to upgrade that other bit. You
can't try to argue the end-user's point of view, and then claim they
would realise that they need to upgrade Gnome to 2.6 to correct the
problem. I think you are trying to wear too many hats in the one
> This is NOT a critic of Sebastian's otherwise excellent work as a
> maintainer, but it is yet another proof that Rhythmbox was not ready.
> That and, given how Sebastian is the one that replied to my Rhythmbox
> bug and how he also is the one advocating entry of GNMOE 2.6 into
> unstable, I indeed have every reasons to beleive that a few more
> corners might have been cut in GNOME 2.6, the same way as Rhythmbox
> was released a tad too hastily.
All this amounts to is a careful ordering of the packages' release into
unstable, to try to maintain installability and usefulness through the
entire sequence. Transition problems have been solved up to now through
testing and feedback, you will probably not get better quality at this
point without releasing to a larger test audience.
The more you make the developers maintain both experimental and unstable
in perfect order, the more time these errors have to happen. By letting
them merge into unstable, you take this burden off them of maintaining 2
independent, bug-free gnome repositories of completely different
versions. Of course, they shouldn't have happened at all, but I don't
think that at this stage holding back would help any more.
loki /at/ internode.on.net