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

Re: Desktop user: Etch or the next testing?



On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:53 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote:
> ---- Wei Chen wrote:
> > So I'd say that maybe Stable is really not for Desktop use.
> > Testing is the best choice because it is neither too dangerous
> > nor too old.
> 
> What do you think about adding a new release type maybe called
> "current"? Then our release structure would look like this:
> 
>               -------------
>               | Unstable  |------
>               -------------     |
>                     |           |
>                     |           |
>                -----------      |
>                | Testing |      |
>                -----------      |
>                     |           |
>            -------------------- |
>            |                  | |
>        ----------       -----------
>        | Stable |       | Current |
>        ----------       -----------
> 
> Current would get both security and feature updates. We could
> advertise this as the perfect blend of stability and up-to-date
> software. Immediately after a release, Current would lag behind
> Testing so it would be more stable. Conversely, during the freeze
> we might be able to pull some packages from Unstable.

I think the linear method in place now is the best, (as far as the three
distibution parts) but what about adding an alias like this:

We have the names: Sarge, Etch, Lenny
and aliases: stable, testing, sid

Why not have another alias called "desktop" (or whatever) that follows
testing with a delay after testing becomes stable?

So now: desktop=etch
After etch is released: desktop=etch
Once Lenny is relatively stable: desktop=lenny

I suggest this because others have suggested here several times that a
desktop user run stable for a while after it is released, and wait for
testing to become more stable before switching back to testing.  I do
this myself: run testing/Etch now, when Etch is released I'll use it,
then later I will upgrade to testing/Lenny and follow it through the
next upgrade when it (Lenny) becomes stable.

There may be reasons not to do this (obvious ones I'm sure, that I'm
missing!), but I see it as a simple but effective way to help out the
Desktop users who like a balance between stability and up-to-date
packages, even through a freeze and distribution switch (migration or
whatever it's called).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: