Re: A "progressive" distribution
i thought i send a reply to this but it doesn't seem to have made it to the
list. i'll try to remember what i typed.
J.H.M. Dassen Ray" (jhm@cistron.nl) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 14:12:49 -0500, Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > try this hypothetical release method out:
> >
> > there are two trees. let's call them devel and production. debian saavy
> > folks (maintainers) run devel. new packages are uploaded to devel where
> > they are tested extensivly. when a package has been in devel for more than
> > (for instance) two weeks, and it has no release critical and few important
> > bugs, it graduates into production.
> >
> > the production branch should always work.
that was a statement of intent, not of fact.
>
> But it won't. This approach ignores the fact that "stability" is a property
> of a release as a whole (the set of packages and their interdependencies,
> ISOs, boot floppies and the upgrade path from the previous release) rather
> than the sum of the stability of individual packages.
>
but this idea has promise, no? i realize that there are still some kinks in
this here, please help me work them out. maybe an intermediate tree? how
would you improve our release practice?
> Ray
> --
> ART A friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven years old.
> I'd be interested to hear from him. There are so many pseudos around taking
> his name in vain.
> - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
--
(jacob kuntz) jake@{megabite,underworld}.net jpk@cape.com
(megabite systems) "think free speech, not free beer." (gnu foundataion)
Reply to: