Re: branding debian releases
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Pim Bliek | PingWings.nl wrote:
> In computer-world unstable means: is known to crash too often, or
> something similar. It sounds like it is flaky, buggy crap :).
I worked at Microsoft for 3 years. They build NT Daily. They have:
* Daily Builds
* IDW Builds
* IDS Builds
* PDC Builds
* Beta Builds
* RC Builds
* Gold Builds
* QFE Builds
* Service Pack Builds
Daily Builds are expected to fail. IDW Builds are about the equivalent
of Debian's Experimental. IDS Builds are about the equivalent of
Debian's Unstable: they are shipped to ISVs, most people are expected to
run them, they mostly work, Microsoft ran www.microsoft.com off them for
about 1 year before Windows 2003 shipped, at first in a very limited
way, then in a big way. IDS builds are built about every 4-6 weeks,
sometimes more often.
An IDS Build is occasionally forked into a PDC, Beta, or RC Build. For
a period of about 2 months effort is made to stabilize the fork while
Daily Builds proceed, usually starting to break significantly as new
things are added. Eventually an RC is selected to go Gold, however
usually about 15-20 Daily's have happened, which becomes the basis for
the next release.
The point of all this is, all types of builds except Dailies are "mostly
usuable," however all except Gold are unstable. (And Even Then... Har
har har)....
Unstable doesn't mean "expected to fail instantly." Unstable means
"expected to fail at all."
Reply to: