Re: unstable is "unstable"; stable is "outdated"
Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > What do you think of having a mini distribution that limits the number of
> > packages allowed?
> Why not just call it "debian-core". Then you can have "debian-gnome",
> "debian-kde", "debian-xfree" etc. Each of these can be implemented as
> seperate distro's with their own releases, using Packages files pointing
> into the pool.
I was thinking something similar to this would be cool, just I wouldn't
like to have to add a lot of lines in my sources.list.
Maybe something like tasks with versions could be used. Packages from
other tasks (or the task itself) could depend on a certain version of
another task instead of depending on many packages within that task.
Tasks that are not yet released could be called unstable, testing, and
stablish (maybe somthing better). Unstable would have new untested
packages. Testing would have packages that passed some automated tests.
Stablish would have packages that were in testing and didn't have any
important bug reports within a certain amount of time. Maybe there could
be one more for alplha and beta versions of packages.
If all works well, unstable should have the lastes packages and be a
little stable, testing should be a little less stable than Red Hat,
stablish should be a little more stable than Red Hat, and stable should
be as stable as it's always been, but more up to date. :)
> This paritions the dependancies, making it all easier to manage, speeding
> the release cycle and potentialy allowing people to mix-n-match stable-core
> with unstable-gnome if they wish.
P.S. I think we need a better name than stablish... Maybe call that
"stable" and the current stable "rockstable"??? Also maybe they souldn't
be called tasks but something new. I'm not good at making up names.