Re: pkg-gnome SVN layout
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I've always considered the latest version this way, and was hoping other
> people were doing the same. If you believe changing the name to "trunk"
> can help that, then let it be, but it's a bit annoying to see a name
> change - which will mess up the whole history of the repository - for
> such a frivolous reason. Admittedly, it will help us in the future to
> always keep the correct history in the trunk.
Well, I sometimes worked on unstable/ for urgent fixes, and had to
merge later. This also means the commits are compressed into a single
one. :-/
> You should also consider that, without a clear separation between
> experimental and unstable, we lose the view of which packages have been
> uploaded to which archive. Of course, there are some web summaries, but
> they don't give such a clear view when actually working on the packages.
I'm not sure what you mean here; we would still have unstable/ and
experimental/.
> > > This, I disagree with. We have experimental for that purpose. We should
> > > not make the current situation (experimental as a staging area for
> > > already stable upstream packages) the norm.
> > Unfortunately, with our current release strategy, there will always be
> > a problem between a 6 months upstream version freeze in Debian and a 6
> > months release cycle upstream.
> More and more voices are asking for a more aggressive release strategy.
> I'd like to know how the lenny release will be handled before making
> such decisions.
Yes, but since we're Debian, this is not going to happen overnight;
let's stop limiting ourselves. :-)
> Furthermore,
> there's little point in building packages if no one uses them.
I'm sure you see/saw the pressure for 2.16, and the 2.18 pressure is
already there (well, it's on the IRC chan and someone filed a bug
against evolution to get 2.10). People want the latest crap! :)
--
Loïc Minier
Reply to: