On August 24, 2003 at 2:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > Debian wl package provides the upstream stable version (latest > > version is 2.10.1-2). Debian wl-beta package provides the > > upstream CVS snapshot which reaches Debian release-quality > > (latest version is 2.11.7+0.20030814-1). > > > > I intended to include both wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/ > > testing/stable. > > Why? If wl-beta is Debian release-quality, why would anyone want to > use wl? Are you doing this for the benefit of users, or because you're > worried you might be guessing wrong, or because it's what upstream > prefers, or what? wl-beta has new features, bug fixes, etc. I feel that wl-beta is useful and reaches Debian release-quality. But wl is more stable than wl-beta, because wl-beta might have new/unknown bugs. Users might prefer the upstream stable version instead of the CVS snapshot. So, I provided user option, wl/wl-beta. I can find `User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10' (stable version) and `User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11' (CVS version) in Debian mailing lists. I think that providing wl/wl-beta helps users. > If, as maintainer, you think the current way of doing things is the best > way, don't change. Could you, Release Manager, accept putting wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/testing/stable? If so, I don't change the current way (uploading wl and wl-beta in unstable). BTW, I have a similar issue for the mew package. I ITPed mew-beta (Bug#203991) on 2003-08-03, but it is now pending because of this issue. I'll do the same way as wl for mew. -- Tatsuya Kinoshita
