On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 11:33:51AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Anyway, I think that you shouldn't worry too much about debian-cd. I'll believe it when I see regularly updated images for a few months in a row... > > My opinion on what we should do about this hasn't changed much: I still > > think the best way of getting consistent, controllable is to maintain > > a candidate distribution in a releasable state permanently. > I completely agree with you. But I don't think that this candidate > distribution should be "testing". It should be a separate distribution > in which explicit uploads are made. > But we need a similar scheme maybe with only one "candidate" release > without any "testing script" running on it. Which adds an extra distribution that has to be: * carried on the mirrors (+50%) * tracked in the BTS (+75-100%) * maintained by each developer (+100%) * administered by ftpmaster, etc (+30%) * understood by our userbase (+30%) * tested (+90%) etc. The numbers in brackets are an estimate of how much extra work will have to be done compared to what's currently done. I don't think what you're suggesting is feasible. > This is really useful for many purposes... let's take the Gnome2 > transition. [...] That's quite possibly true -- certainly the archive as it stands doesn't handle "large" updates as well as it might. But that's a relatively minor problem, IMO. It's certainly too minor to warrant coming anywhere near doubling the amount of work it takes to maintain Debian on an ongoing basis... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Description: PGP signature