On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:18:51PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 22:46:48 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > Never the less, I think the original question (whether 7.2.4 should be > > accepted for woody) is a good one. > > True, though I think a better question would be a somewhat more generalised > one: are we happy with the current rules for updates to stable, and if not, > what improvements to them can we think of and what support (manpower, > infrastructure) would be needed if they are improve? > > > If I understood Martin Pitt's explanation correctly, the postgresql > > upstream doesn't lightly perform third-level updates such as the one from > > 7.2.1 to 7.2.4. > > Debian currently has very long release cycles and very conservative rules > for updates to stable. This has contributed much to stable being very > stable, but the popularity of backports.org and apt-get.org indicates that > there is a large audience who appreciate stability but that have > requirements which our stable distribution in its current form doesn't meet.
I guess my question wasn't clear enough.
In my opinion, the conservative rules for updates to stable are a
feature, one that should not be touched, ever. Yes, maybe we should do
our best to get the release cycles a wee bit shorter, but that's a
different question altogether.
However, if an upstream has rules regarding (what they call) stable
updates that are (at least) as conservative as Debian's, we shouldn't
say no to upstream updates 'just because'; it would be silly if 99% of
all patches that make up a new upstream release would be accepted in
DSAs and other updates to stable, with the 1% being just about the bit
that changes the version number.
I don't know whether all this is true for our policy regarding upstream
updates, or whether this description of a hypothetical upstream fits the
PostgreSQL upstream; but if those are the case, I think the idea of
updating PostgreSQL is worth considering.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
