Re: testing-dedicated ML? ( was Re: End of hypocrisy ? )

[Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>]

Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 7/22/14, David Guntner <david@guntner.com> wrote:
> > Tom H grabbed a keyboard and wrote:
> > > There is one
> > >
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-testing/
> > >
> > > but a quick look at the its archives shows that it isn't a heavily
> > > used list and that it's not a list for freaking out about systemd.
> > Neither is this one, but that doesn't seem to stop people.... :-)
> :)
>
> It is the point too though, and I think a point made very well.
> And I think it would be perfectly effective. eg:
>
> - This *is* debian 'testing' list - if you're not up to testing, or it
> gets too hot around here, please, go back to stable.
>
> - This *is* debian 'unstable' list - what is your expectation of
> transitioning new software into debian 'testing'?
>
> - This *is* debian stable list - what are you doing complaining about
> debian testing/ unstable?
>
> _That_ has got to be about the perfect response to certain <ahem>
> "complaints" shall we call them  :)
>
> It would require a concensus to 'activate' the debian-testing list. Is
> there a debian-unstable - or perhaps that should just be part of
> debian-testing?
>
> Or is it all too much, too many lists?
>
> The idea seems quite appealing to me.

Some of us are actually interested in knowing what's going on with 
testing, before it becomes stable.  Separating the lists seems like a 
very bad idea.

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra