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.
Greetings
Marc
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: