Re: gbuffy needs a QA Team upload

[Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>]

* Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es> [2004-06-21 17:16]:
> Thinking about completely removing it leads me to a question about
> the package removal proposed by Andreas Barth: having the suite of
> packages in unstable and testing to differ *considerably*, is a good
> or a bad think? Should it be encouraged, avoided, or just tolerated?

Well, personally, I'm a bit afraid of testing and unstable moving
apart... for example, all developers use unstable rather than testing
but we ship testing... if testing and unstable grow apart, this would
be a problem.  However, it's less of a problem with packages which are
in unstable but not in testing.

We recently discussed move checks for packages which we release, and
the suggestion was to leave packages into unstable just like we do
now, but require further checks before they move to testing for the
first time.  I think it's a good compromise because we give packages
the chance to get tested and find users (by distributing them in
unstable), but I am a bit worried about having such big differences
between testing and unstable.

But maybe that's just me.  I know other people think about this
differently.

Well, one example: sometimes, a package is removed from testing
because it's buggy, but it's left in unstable... in some cases this
may be okay, but I think we should also check if those package should
be removed from Debian altogether.  Just removing them from testing is
okay for the release, but doesn't solve the whole problem.
-- 
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com