Re: testing-dedicated ML? ( was Re: End of hypocrisy ? )
On 7/24/14, Bret Busby <bret.busby@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/07/2014, berenger.morel@neutralite.org
> <berenger.morel@neutralite.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 21.07.2014 15:31, Slavko a écrit :
>>> Ahoj,
>>>
>>> it seems, that there can good idea to provide separate ML for testing
>>> users.
>>
>> I agree, since testing is not for normal users (well... theoretically
>> at least), so we could imagine that different MLs for (beta-)testing and
>> productive usage (questions about "how to do..." and stable related bugs
>> would go there, I guess).
>> Now, I have no idea about the complexity of maintaining a new ML. Maybe
>> there are also problems because some issues can not clearly affect only
>> one of both testing and stable?
>>
>>
>
> I would like to see a list for each of:
> experimental
> unstable
> testing
> stable (by version number, eg, at present, 7)
> oldstable (by version number, eg, at present, 6)
> obsolete (versions previous to oldstable)
> hybrid - combinations of the above, eg, where people mix stable and testing,
> etc
>
> I believe that it would be helpful, and, would provide for most
> scenario's, and, when a new release occurs (eg, for Debian 8), the
> archives get each moved into the lower level archive, so the oldstable
> archive goes into the obsolete, the stable archive goes into the
> oldstable, and the testing archive goes into the stabl;e achive.
>
> Or, the top three;
> experimental
> unstable
> testing
> then by version number;
> 7
> 6
> 5
> 4
> 3.1
> 3
No no, that's really impractical - the applications man,
the applications!
We need a list for each package! You can't ruly home in
on your questions of interest until you have dedicated
lists for each package.
Sometimes, those lists should have a repeater which
copies each message to a corresponding upstream list
(I'm thinking mutt for example, but I'm sure there's
others).
so mutt-debian-users@.., postgresql-debian-users@... etc.
There should probably be some combo lists but rather
than as you suggest for distro version, they should be
for combinations of packages.
> That might make for more lists, but it could be workable, and, more useful.
Should be enjoyed by many, and even _more_ useful ;)
Reply to: