Quoting Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org): > Does it really make sense for users to use t-p-u? Anything can be > uploaded there, rejected by the release team, and no upgrade path is > necessarily provided for a system that installed a package from there > and ends up tracking stable.
Well, after thinking a little bit more, I wonder if the case of users installing testing *and then* wanting to track stable is really what we want to address here. And I also wonder whether that happens often (that someone installs testing and then sticks to stable once the testing (s)he installed has been released. I more see users who install testing as those users you want to address with your CUT proposal, ie people who will always follow testing. In such case, it then makes some sense to *not* use the release name in sources.list. And, of course, the question of upgrade path to stable is becoming less important. OTOH, not being able to guarantee an upgrade path from t-p-u to (the next) stable is probably not a good idea if we want people to use t-p-u (which was the original point of this discussion). Couldn't that be turned into a requirement?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
