On Friday 29 April 2011 11:46:30 Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 29/04/11 at 10:23 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: > > 2. In the past there used to be two rather opposites use-cases of > > testing: some (luckely more than just the release team) see it as a tool > > to develop stable. Others see it (mostly) as a usable distribution. > > I'm unconvinced that splitting testing into rolling+testing will benefit > > both use cases. (And I think this is shared rather widely in this > > thread.) > > I think that the proposal is to: > - rename 'testing' to 'rolling' to make it clear that it's usable as a > rolling release
It is also possible that a 'rename' brings no more value, but a confusion to the users for unpredictable amount of time. > - add a new 'frozen' suite, used only during freezes, to prepare the > next stable release So, if I need to fix an RC bug during the freeze, I'll upload to unstable, then release managers wait for it to enter rolling and cherry-pick it from there; or do they cherry-pick directly from unstable, skipping rolling; or do they cherry-pick from as they find fit in a mixed fashion. I can see that you struggle to find a solution, which is good, but all these additions of levels started to look like a joke, eventually wasting both astronomic, human and machine time. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- 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/201104301724.38169.danc...@spnet.net
