on Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 11:23:33AM -0600, Matt Greer (matthew-greer@uiowa.edu) wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2001 01:25 am, Kurt Lieber wrote:
<...>
> > Honestly, I'd recommend skipping testing and going straight to
> > unstable.
>
> This is the first I've seen of this recommendation. I've scoured the
> newsgroups and most people seem to be talking about Woody. I'll have
> to look more into this.
As someone who's run stable, testing, and unstable, I'm also inclined to
say that the experience under unstable is slightly better than that
under testing.
The issue is this:
- When there's a bug in a Sid package, the maintainer gets flogged,
and a fix is posted (frequently within 24-48 hours). You're back on
track.
- When there's a bug in a Testing package, the package is pulled.
It's not reinstated until ten days have passed from submission of an
update, without a significant bug report. Packages don't roll back,
they roll off.
IMVAO, the testing release process requires a hard re-thinking. A means
to roll back to a prior proven release of a package would be a good
thing, and would allow for testing to assume the role of "release
candidate at any time", rather than "less buggy than unstable, but
guaranteed incomplete".
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave
http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free
We freed Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgp6psbgICFVz.pgp
Description: PGP signature