[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Woody retrospective and Sarge introspective

Le Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 12:18:27AM +0300, Richard Braakman écrivait:
> You keep saying "unstable/testing".

Yes because they are connected. 

> If it's really true that such large updates go into testing before
> they're releasable, then that means testing is not living up to its
> purpose.  

What I say is not only applicable to "large updates", it is equally true
for small independant packages. See my answer to Joey Hess in
debian-devel (a few minutes ago so I have no url to provide you).

> In other words, once you add "candidate", what is the purpose of "testing"?

Knowing that a package meets basic quality criteria and that you can
think about uploading it to "candidate". But that upload must no be
automatic since entering testing doesn't mean that the package satisfies
the maintainer wishes...

[ Of course one could use a fake RC bug for that with testing too.
But this behaviour completely blocks people who have packages depending on
the "blocked" ... if their packages are ready they can't send them to
testing because autobuilders will build against the "blocked" package ]

> > several large updates like this one which cross in the thime (perl-5.8,
> > gcc3.[12], xf4.2, kde3, ...), you get many troubles to effectively "freeze"
> > the distribution ...
> I don't think so.  What happens is that testing lags behind unstable
> for a while.  I expect that a manually-updated distribution will lag
> even worse.

This is not contradictory with what I said. What you're saying is true.

Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Reply to: