Re: testing-dedicated ML? ( was Re: End of hypocrisy ? )
On 7/24/14, Bret Busby <bret.busby@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/07/2014, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, .... there are application lists.
>
> PostgreSQL has its own lists, MySQL has its own lists, Fetchmail has
> its own list, Posfix has its own list, Procmail has its own list,
> alpine has its own list, GRAMPS has its own list, GnuCash has its own
> list, as mentioned in another thread (the one about iceape), Seamonkey
> has its own list, and, as the King (as played by Yul Brynner) said,
> "etcetera, etcetera, etcetera".
There's a slashdot saying appropriate just here ...
not quite sure what that is, it's ...
going over my head right now.
;)
Reply to: