Bastian Venthur wrote: > Didier Raboud schrieb: >> Bastian Venthur wrote: >>> What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen, >>> maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary >>> and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go >>> while all the new stuff can still go into unstable but cannot enter the >>> next step while we're in the freeze: >>> >>> Normal: >>> >>> experimental || unstable > testing > stable >>> >>> Freeze: >>> >>> experimental || unstable || $something frozen > testing > stable >>> >>> Basicly we already have this with: >>> >>> experimental || unstable > testing > stable >> >> Something like >> >> experimental || unstable-be || unstable-pt > testing >> stable >> >> with: >> >> experimental Real >> sandbox/playground/if-your-box-breaks-its-your-own-fault >> unstable-be Bleeding-Edge Constantly updated to "newest upstream" >> unstable-pt Pre-Testing Last "considered long-time and stable" >> upstream >> Bug-fixing, actual "unstable" >> testing as actually Future Stable >> >> ? > > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > from the unstable > testing > stable flow. > > Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're > just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time.
Isn't there a need for a freeze+stabilisation time (~ a year for Lenny…) in which updates occur in 2 stages to finalize and "stable"ize one particular snapshot ? Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months. /me scratches head. -- Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse − http://www.swisslinux.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
