Re: Proposal: incremental release process (the package pool)

[Joey Hess <joey@varesearch.com>]

Anthony Towns wrote:
>         stable, testing, unstable     (note the sorting order! I'm so proud.)
> 
> Stable and unstable would remain more or less exactly as they are now. There
> aren't any changes to dinstall, or how/where you upload to, etc.
> 
> Testing is a distribution that's completely automatic --- a program
> (with minimal human assistance, I'm not entirely clear on how to manage
> this) selects packages from unstable that satisfy a number of criteria
> and replaces the existing versions in testing with versions from unstable.
> 
> The criteria I think would be best are:
> 
> 	* binaries for all appropriate architectures have been built
> 	* they are installable using just packages from testing
> 	* they don't make any other package in testing uninstallable
> 	* the package doesn't have any outstanding release-critical bugs
> 	* this version of the package has been in unstable for a fortnight
> 	  or more

Nice. :-)

Can people who favor package pools come up with a list of things package
pools give us that this much simpler approach doesn't?

-- 
see shy jo