On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:00:20 +0200 Martin Steigerwald <mar...@lichtvoll.de> wrote:
> Diederik, I think this is about "I want an always stable and releaseable > testing" again. I disagree. This is more about knowing if the package combination I am currently running is worth testing and reporting found bugs on, or whether I am in some temporary state where some packages I should have are still waiting in the queue, and any bug report I make would only waste time of the packagers, or whoever else will be reviewing it. If the KDE packaging layout was simpler, and all packages followed e.g. same naming policy or same versioning scheme, it wouldn't be an issue, as it would be easy to verify whether I still have some packages waiting for an upgrade. But there are various sets of packages (around kf5, plasma, kdepim, ...), each having various and different version numbers, and it is quite taxing trying to make heads or tails of it all. > And, yes, while I think some improvements in the order packages enter > testing, > would certainly be nice, I also think that the main purpose of testing is > just > that: Preparing Debian for release by testing the heck out of it. That it is > kind of a rolling distro, is in my eyes just a side effect of it. And I think > for a rolling distro unstable is more suitable anyway. > > So that is where I will focus my energy: Testing out the new packages while > fully understanding that there can be transitional states of breakage that do > not even matter for the final stable distribution as it won´t have KF 5.22 > packages. Fully agreed here, but first you have to be able to identify which are the transitional states, otherwise you're just bringing more noise to the packagers, as I described above. Regards, -- Andrej
