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

Re: Rethinking stable updates policy

On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:45:31PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> I think it's time we reopen the discussion on what stable means and what
> it should mean.
> To start with, [1] says that a package is only uploaded to stable when
> it meets one of these criteria:
>  * it fixes a truly critical functionality problem
>  * the package becomes uninstallable
>  * a released architecture lacks the package

I would love to have "the new package for stable eases future update"
as this would allow to fix stable issues which would otherwise cause
future grief to fix. For example, a more allowing policy would allow
exim 3 to warn against new installations and in turn motivate people
to update to exim3 before they take the etch plunge.

> Examples of things that should happen in stable, but haven't been
> happening reliably:
>  * Kernel updates with more broad hardware support
>  * Infrastructure updates such as ClamAV and Spamassassin
>  * Security and other important Firefox updates

I think we have volatile for this, allowing people to choose whether
they need absolute stability or new infrastructure.


Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835

Reply to: