On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Russell Coker <russ...@coker.com.au> wrote: > On Monday 22 December 2008 17:55, "Paul Wise" <p...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten >> >> <mortenkjeldga...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing >> > stable. >> >> Freezing is the whole point of stable, if we didn't freeze it, it has >> no reason to exist. > > In the current design "stable" means frozen. > > The suggestion was that you have a branch named "stable" (which actually could > be given some other name) that consists of packages that have been > through "testing" and found to pass some criteria suggesting quality (in the > same way that "testing" has packages that have passed through "unstable" > after some days of delay without new versions). > > Then the frozen branches would have some name other than "stable". > > Basically it's a suggestion for two levels of "testing". >
The thought of a rolling release system has a lot of appeal to me for desktop usage, but not for server usage, since each update contains the potential to break things. It might be worth investigating into, I know such infrequent releases makes using RELEASE-backports, or running testing becomes almost essential if you want updated tools. > -- > russ...@coker.com.au > http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog > http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
