Re: testing-dedicated ML? ( was Re: End of hypocrisy ? )
On 24/07/2014, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
> 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.
>
> ;)
>
>
I do not understand the last posting above.
--
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
..............
"So once you do know what the question actually is,
you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought,
Chapter 28 of Book 1 of
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
A Trilogy In Four Parts",
written by Douglas Adams,
published by Pan Books, 1992
....................................................
Reply to: