On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:48:01 +0200, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> However, if unstable would be frozen at the same time, would
>>> development stop? Probably not. I'm pretty sure that several
>>> would start with separate repositories and the like to make more
>>> recent versions of the software available which they maintain.
>>
>> When we used to freeze unstable before a release, one of the
>> problems was that many updates were blocked by that, and once the
>> freeze was over, unstable tended to become _very_ unstable, and
>> took months to get back into shape.
> What do you think we'd get by combining both (testing + unstable
> freeze)?
If you freeze unstable anyway, you are blocking the updates --
and thus have all the problems of this style of interrupted
development. If unstable is frozen, what is the point of Testing?
Am I missing something in your (somewhat nebulous) proposal?
manoj
--
The new Linux anthem will be "He's an idiot, but he's ok", as
performed byMonthy Python. You'd better start practicing. -- Linus
Torvalds, announcing another kernel patch
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
