Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: w >> I think it would be marginal. After all, the experimental >> distribution does exit for this purpose and nonetheless, people do >> not neglect unstable. > > I do not think you understand what the experimental > distribution is, and how it is different from unstable, if you can > say that. (not a full distribution, contains truly volatile packages, > not supported by buildd's, for a start).
Yes I do. Experimental is not really a "distribution". It is a repository you cherrypick packages from. And packages are usually built against unstable packages. >> Before "testing", the RM used to freeze unstable and people were >> working on fixing bugs. There were pretest cycles with bug horizons, > > Not true. People were mostly twiddling their thumbs. Only a > small subset of people can actually help in fixing RC bugs. Are you talking about skills? >> and freezes were shorter. Of course, without "testing", >> synchronizing arches was a pain, that's why I'd say let's combine >> both. > >> Instead of always telling than a given idea won't work, let's try it >> and conclude afterwards. > > We have tried the whole freezing route. But feel free to try > it out (like aj did Testing), and tell us how it would have worked. The difference is that I don't want to throw Testing out. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
