On 28/04/11 at 13:10 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: > On 28/04/2011 12:03, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Might be, except that I don't want to keep the name "testing" due > > to its connotation that doesn't reflect well the goal of something > > that's constantly usable. > > > > Except that it's lying to our users to name it "rolling" because packages > from rolling won't be rc-bug free. For this reason, I think that "testing" > is a very well choosen name, more honest about its state. If people think > that "testing" (as a suite) is broken, then we should try to change that > idea, instead of just changing its name. (IMO)
Unless we say that rolling will be RC-bug free, I don't see why it's lying to our users. But your point is correct: we need to define clearly what we provide to our users with rolling. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110428130924.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info
