On 2 Dec, George Bonser wrote: > > I have noticed that Debian rolls unstable to frozen and then to stable in > its release cycle. In order to more accurately reflect reality, I suggest > that a fourth stage be created between unstable and frozen. I would call > this "broken". A release candidate would roll from unstable to broken and > in this way, when someone tries to upgrade to it and it breaks their > system, it will not be any great surprise ... "I just upgraded to broken > and now my system is broken...oh, nevermind." Once broken is no longer > broken and will actually work, it should then go to frozen ... where it > should actually be frozen. If it becomes broken again after being frozen > it should be moved back to broken. It would really be nice if frozen > really ment frozen too. > > In other words, once a candidate moves out of unstable, once it is no > longer called unstable ... people do not expect it be unstable. At least > if it is moved from unstable to broken, there will be no surprises. Either > than or call it unstable-frozen rather than frozen. Broken is more > accurate and shorter though. > > > George Bonser > > The Linux "We're never going out of business" sale at an FTP site near you! > > I think it should go broken -> unstable -> frozen -> stable. It would seem to me that unstable -> broken represents a backwards move.
chrsi
