Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 05:03:03PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Michael Casadevall [081222 12:14]: > > The thought of a rolling release system has a lot of appeal to me for > > desktop usage, but not for server usage, since each update contains > > the potential to break things. > > I don't

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

* Michael Casadevall [081222 12:14]: > The thought of a rolling release system has a lot of appeal to me for > desktop usage, but not for server usage, since each update contains > the potential to break things. I don't see how that is different for server or desktop. Large amount of desktop mach

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Russell Coker wrote: > On Monday 22 December 2008 17:55, "Paul Wise" wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten >> >> wrote: >> > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing >> > stable. >> >> Freezing is the whole point

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Monday 22 December 2008 17:55, "Paul Wise" wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten > > wrote: > > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing > > stable. > > Freezing is the whole point of stable, if we didn't freeze it, it has > no reason to exist.

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Kjeldgaard Morten wrote: > Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing stable. Freezing is the whole point of stable, if we didn't freeze it, it has no reason to exist. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

In article <1e8bc2f9-7665-4186-acff-79ad91461...@bioxray.au.dk> you wrote: > Say "stable" is redefined as "bug-free" in the sense that there are no > RC bugs in that repo. If a serious bug is found in a package, it is > removed from stable, until the bug has been fixed in "testing". this does

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 15/12/2008, at 21.25, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Or you might use experimental, and keep unstable for lenny. Another model that I think has not been discussed is never freezing stable. Say "stable" is redefined as "bug-free" in the sense that there are no RC bugs in that repo. If a serio

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, sorry for posting to this thread once more, permit me to get this off my chest. I apologize for the disgraceful lack of civility my posts to this thread and I regret that it reduced your fun in Debian. If you are inclined to do me a favor after all of this, please don't reply to this message.

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:22:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Also new users have a tendency to go with testing and don't use > unstable much these days. > > The net effect is that there aren't enough people left using unstable > to uncover enough problems. Hence bugs silently make it to testin

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Neil McGovern wrote: On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:09:03PM +0100, Dionysios Kalofonos wrote: during soft freeze any changes can be made as long as no new RC bugs get introduced, and during hard freeze is what happens today. Erm, doesn't this happen already? sorry, something i did not clarify

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 02:09:03PM +0100, Dionysios Kalofonos wrote: > during soft freeze any changes can be made as long as no new RC bugs get > introduced, and during hard freeze is what happens today. > Erm, doesn't this happen already? Neil -- <@nurn> Paedophile Glitter arrives in UK <@nur

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, Bastian Venthur wrote: What I see *now* is that the freezes during the last two and the current release are getting longer and longer (~1,5 months, ~4 months and for Lenny at least 5 months). For me this seems to be a serious problem we should not ignore. Important software is outdated in un

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Christian Perrier dijo [Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 07:40:12AM +0100]: > It could be by promoting experimental a different way we are doing it > right now...or by adding an intermediate stage between unstable and > experimental. For that latter case, I somewhat fear the (human) resource > problem we would

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:52 PM, Noah Slater wrote: To be honest, I'd prefer if Bastian applied his skills to helping a project I'm not a member of. I am not going to comment on his behaviour, your comments may very well be justified. But I do think it would do the project some good if we all

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Wednesday 17 December 2008 10:55, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > > The Fedora vs RHEL model that Red Hat uses has some benefits. > > The Fedora and RHEL is: > > Fedora: a somewhat equivalent of Debian Testing. The rules for updating > a package even after a version is released are way more laxed than

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josselin Mouette wrote: > Actually I don’t think we should recommend testing at all to desktop > users. Why? >Except during freeze times, I find unstable to be much more > usable, and keep testing for (non-production) servers. IMHO, there i

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

"Daniel Moerner" wrote: Hi, > Obviously, having more users test unstable is good. However, I agree > that it's not necessarily a big issue. A good deal of RC-bugs are > related to FTBFS, security advisories, package conflicts, and the > like. These bugs can pop up independently of how much te

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, > Maybe that’s because I maintain packages with a large audience, but I > don’t find that effect very important. You're right about the large audience, it does make quite a difference. > Actually I don’t think we should recommend testing at all to desktop > users.

Re: Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

The single largest factor in making the atmosphere unpleasant is people who aren't contributing to Debian running their mouths on our development lists. I disagree, though I know relatively well how much people contribute. I'd rather blame the mailing lists if simple enthusiasts caused too mu

Re: Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

That works both ways - those who do contribute and help Debian across a wide range of areas should be valued and supported, even if they show that frustration from time to time. Everyone makes mistakes but why must the most active contributors be the first target of criticism when they criticise

Re: Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

The other way round works, too: Removing people who don't have that minimal commitment from the project and their packages from the archive would also allow us to release (a lot less) in a timely fashion. Right... And it would also help releasing timely to remove all buggy packages. --

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:22 +0100, Julien BLACHE a écrit : >> Also new users have a tendency to go with testing and don't use >> unstable much these days. >> >> The net effect is that there aren't enough people left using unstable >>

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:17:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:55 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit : > > Fedora: a somewhat equivalent of Debian Testing. The rules for updating > > a package even after a version is released are way more laxed than > > Debian Stable

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Romain Beauxis (16/12/2008): > I think you completely forgot about the fact that this project is run > by people who aren't payed for that. They aren't paid for repeatedly ranting about the fact we have not released yet, either. Which is something Bastian does, and which is what was answered to.

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:22 +0100, Julien BLACHE a écrit : > Also new users have a tendency to go with testing and don't use > unstable much these days. > > The net effect is that there aren't enough people left using unstable > to uncover enough problems. Hence bugs silently make it to test

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le mardi 16 décembre 2008 à 23:55 +, Tzafrir Cohen a écrit : > Fedora: a somewhat equivalent of Debian Testing. The rules for updating > a package even after a version is released are way more laxed than > Debian Stable. For what I’ve seen, Fedora rawhide is more similar to Debian experiment

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 09:31:13AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tuesday 16 December 2008 10:06, Romain Beauxis > wrote: > > > Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a > > > problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to > > > a server-on

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Ana Guerrero wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:29:21AM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: >> >> Look for example at the upcoming KDE4.2 : KDE4.0 ("public beta") went out >> in january 2008. Since then and 'because' of the unstable-to-testing >> pipe, KDE4.0 has only lived in experimental with the big

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:22:29PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Being stricter wrt testing migration is hardly going to help. What > will help is having more people actually use unstable so bugs are > uncovered before they hit testing. Sounds reasonable... so, we have to encourage ("competent") u

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tuesday 16 December 2008 23:38, Holger Levsen wrote: > I find it very strange to see people complaining about the long freeze, > instead of working on making it shorter. > > If we decouple the freeze from development in unstable, the result will > that less people will be working on releasing,

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tuesday 16 December 2008 10:06, Romain Beauxis wrote: > > Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a > > problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to > > a server-only distribution. > > You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software.

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:53:58PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > I get criticised for being rude or direct - well here's the news: I don't care > if people think I'm rude, deal with it. At least I do what I can to fix stuff, > I apologise when I do make mistakes and I do not recommend something I h

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:07:25PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > "clear that most people don't work on RC bugs instead of working on their > packages": I don't have any data on that, it's mostly based on > perception. Let's try to gather data on something relevant: > > Number of distinct posters

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: Hi, > Reading this (and following the idea of not introducing new stuff or > archives but releasing faster) it sounds as simple as "testing needs > to be more strict and rigorous in accepting packages to be *indeed* > always in a seriously better shape than unstable so that

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:55:40PM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Romain Beauxis wrote: > > > I think you completely forgot about the fact that this project is run by > > > people who aren't payed for that. > > > And, yes I didn't f

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Noah Slater wrote: Hi, > suit. This inevitably causes a chain reaction of rudeness and flames. As a > community, we would do well to be a little more tolerant of others, and that > includes their mistakes. And that includes cutting some slack to people when they vent off, as people occasionally

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:58:52 + Noah Slater wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:53:58PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > > I get criticised for being rude or direct - well here's the news: I > > don't care if people think I'm rude, deal with it. At least I do > > what I can to fix stuff, I apolog

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:46:41PM +, Mark Brown wrote: > Of course, these problems would all also apply to a frozen distribution > like we used to have. My recollection of those times is that the long > freezes we had back then had pretty similar effects on general > development - the win fro

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > What I see *now* is that the freezes during the last two and the current > release are getting longer and longer (~1,5 months, ~4 months and for > Lenny at least 5 months). For me this seems to be a serious problem we > should not

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:57:15PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:41:58 + > Noah Slater wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:17:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > > > Actually, I don't know since

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:41:58 + Noah Slater wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:17:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > > Actually, I don't know since I'm not long enough involved to know > > > what happened "back then". > >

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:55:40 -0500 Kevin Mark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > > Romain Beauxis wrote: > > > I think you completely forgot about the fact that this project is > > > run by people who aren't payed for that. > > > > > > And, yes I didn't f

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Steve McIntyre schrieb: > > I'm curious about that myself. We've tried that in the past, and a > > 3-year release cycle was what happened. Experience tells us that we > > have much too big a system to suddenly one day declare "rele

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:17:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > Actually, I don't know since I'm not long enough involved to know what > > happened "back then". > > It's called research. It's called manners. -- Noah Slater, ht

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:27:55PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Actually, I don't know since I'm not long enough involved to know what > happened "back then". It's called research. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". T

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:29:21AM +0100, Didier Raboud wrote: > > Look for example at the upcoming KDE4.2 : KDE4.0 ("public beta") went out in > january 2008. Since then and 'because' of the unstable-to-testing pipe, > KDE4.0 has only lived in experimental with the big fat blinking > red "WARNING

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Romain Beauxis wrote: > > I think you completely forgot about the fact that this project is run by > > people who aren't payed for that. > > > > And, yes I didn't fix any RC bug today, nor yesterday. I even have now 3 on > > medi

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:30:22PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > But while you bring it up: I want a Debian where every Developer can cough up > a minimal commitment to help with releasing. That is what "Have you fixed an > RC bug today is about?". If all developers had fixed one RC bug in the mo

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Romain Beauxis wrote: > I think you completely forgot about the fact that this project is run by > people who aren't payed for that. > > And, yes I didn't fix any RC bug today, nor yesterday. I even have now 3 on > mediawiki for which I won't be able to take much time. How about once per year?

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Steve McIntyre schrieb: > Alexander wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Bastian Venthur schrieb: >>> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and >>> we're just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time. >> Sounds like what was done before testing was introduced, which worked even

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur wrote: >Holger Levsen schrieb: > >> I find it very strange to see people complaining about the long freeze, >> instead of working on making it shorter. > >I actually made a suggestion how to avoid a freeze in unstable, since >looking at the length of the freeze times of the last tw

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Alexander wrote: >Hi! > >Bastian Venthur schrieb: >> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and >> we're just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time. > >Sounds like what was done before testing was introduced, which worked even >less, with even longer freeze p

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 20:30:22 Thomas Viehmann, vous avez écrit : > But while you bring it up: I want a Debian where every Developer can > cough up a minimal commitment to help with releasing. That is what "Have > you fixed an RC bug today is about?". If all developers had fixed one RC > bug

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Miriam Ruiz wrote: > I don't think this kind of attitude helps anyone. Harassing people for > having ideas different than yours will only make people to stop > sharing them. We should seriously reconsider what kind of "Debian" we > want. Seriously. Yeah, my post was more than inappropriate. But wh

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 16/12/08 at 19:15 +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 18:07 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > "clear that most people don't work on RC bugs instead of working on their > > packages": I don't have any data on that, it's mostly based on > > perception. Let's try to gather data on s

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Lucas Nussbaum (16/12/2008): > Number of distinct posters per month on debian-bugs...@lists.d.o: > [ figures ] > So, the number of people working on RC bugs has significantly > decreased since the beginning of the freeze. The less RC bugs, the less people working on it. Nice point you made. Mraw

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 18:07 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 16/12/08 at 14:34 +, Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:07:12PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > On 16/12/08 at 14:21 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > > > I think this question is nonsense. While the bug-fix rate

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:38 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Montag, 15. Dezember 2008, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > > from the unstable > testin

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

2008/12/16 Thomas Viehmann : > Hi, > > Bastian Venthur wrote: >> What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen, >> maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary >> and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go >> while all the ne

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 06:48:08PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Bastian, this is a brilliant idea!! Debian needs those excellent people like > you who have splendid ideas and all ready to implement them!!! You are the > most valuable person in Debian right now! Because you contribute a > lot

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Hi, > Bastian Venthur wrote: > > What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen > > Bastian, this is a brilliant idea!! Debian needs those excellent people > like you who have splendid ideas and all ready to implement them!!! You > are the most valuab

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, Bastian Venthur wrote: > What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen, > maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary > and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go > while all the new stuff can still go into unstable but

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 16/12/08 at 14:34 +, Neil McGovern wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:07:12PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 16/12/08 at 14:21 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > > I think this question is nonsense. While the bug-fix rate was more or > > > less the same since the last two releases, it l

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 16/12/08 at 09:46 -0500, Mike O'Connor wrote: > What new graphics cards are supported by xorg 7.4 that arean't already > supported by unstable? the intel, ati, radio, nv drivers don't support > any newer cards afaict. Intel GM45 (found in laptops shipped since ~ september 2008) is unsupported

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 02:21:09PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > I think this question is nonsense. While the bug-fix rate was more or > less the same since the last two releases, What was the bug-fix rate for the last two releases? I thought that the bug fix rate for etch was faster than th

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi! Bastian Venthur schrieb: > Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and > we're just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time. Sounds like what was done before testing was introduced, which worked even less, with even longer freeze periods, where you couldn'

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 2008-12-16 15:58 +0100, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:52:53PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: >> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're >> just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time. > > That sounds like ubuntu. But speaking of

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 05:13:59PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: > That some people are not interested in making the release happen, is a real > problem IMO. We shouldnt encourage such behaviour ;-) Then why are you posting to mailing lists instead of releasing lenny? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, On Dienstag, 16. Dezember 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I agree. It's clear that most people don't work on RC bugs instead of > working on their packages: during freezes, they just stop working on > Debian, since it's judged socially incorrect to work on one's packages > in unstable or experim

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:58:40AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:52:53PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > Didier Raboud schrieb: > > > > ? > > > > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but t

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:52:53PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Didier Raboud schrieb: > > ? > > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > from the unstable > testing > stable flow. > > Anot

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Christian Perrier wrote: > (…) > So, I had another "idea": open -backports at the moment is > frozen so that maintainers can upload the latest bleeding edge > versions of their packages there, when using experimental is not > possible for some reasons. And make backports an official service of De

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Quoting Bastian Venthur (vent...@debian.org): > Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a > problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to > a server-only distribution. While I don't see such a big issues in this, there is maybe room for imp

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:16:05PM +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > I support that request. Not only is unstable quite outdated already > (bleeding edge?) it also becomes more and more a problem since the > kernel and Xorg aren't updated anymore in unstable. That means that > newer hardware (espe

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 03:07:12PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 16/12/08 at 14:21 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > I think this question is nonsense. While the bug-fix rate was more or > > less the same since the last two releases, it looks like in this release > > we actually started the fre

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On 16/12/08 at 14:21 +0100, Bastian Venthur wrote: > I think this question is nonsense. While the bug-fix rate was more or > less the same since the last two releases, it looks like in this release > we actually started the freeze with much more RC-bugs than before. So it > was foreseeable that the

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Romain Beauxis wrote: > > Honnestly, this discussion takes place at every freeze. As many others: firmware, dfsg-freeness, … ;) > First of all, you probably should propose such thing *after* the release, > not now. > > Secondly, I'm still wondering what new arguments were brought here. For > in

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 14:55:29 Didier Raboud, vous avez écrit : > > I think that the three existing flavours of debian already provide more > > than is needed to offer comfort for both users with stability needs and > > users with desire for new software. > > Actually, I would agree if you co

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Didier Raboud wrote: >> Yes. But there is a bunch of non-DD people that strongly want to use >> Debian and prefer the recent software over the stabilized one. > > These are called 'users of unstable' or 'users of testing'. Fair enough. >>

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Holger Levsen schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > On Montag, 15. Dezember 2008, Bastian Venthur wrote: > >> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > >> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > >> from the unstable >

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

2008/12/16 Bastian Venthur : > I actually made a suggestion how to avoid a freeze in unstable, since > looking at the length of the freeze times of the last two releases and > the current one it seems that this model doesn't scale very well. I share your concerns and I support your position too.

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Holger Levsen schrieb: > Hi, > > On Montag, 15. Dezember 2008, Bastian Venthur wrote: >> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important >> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected >> from the unstable > testing > stable flow. > > That's the way

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Didier Raboud wrote: > Romain Beauxis wrote: >> You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software. For a solid release >> to be done, one needs to hold new improvements for a while. > > Yes. But there is a bunch of non-DD people that strongly want t

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hi, On Montag, 15. Dezember 2008, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > from the unstable > testing > stable flow. That's the way it is. Have you fixed an RC bug t

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

2008/12/15 Bastian Venthur : > Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important > thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected > from the unstable > testing > stable flow. > > Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're > ju

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le Tuesday 16 December 2008 00:29:21 Didier Raboud, vous avez écrit : > > You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software. For a solid release > > to be done, one needs to hold new improvements for a while. > > Yes. But there is a bunch of non-DD people that strongly want to use Debian > and pr

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Romain Beauxis wrote: > You can't get both recent *and* stabilized software. For a solid release > to be done, one needs to hold new improvements for a while. Yes. But there is a bunch of non-DD people that strongly want to use Debian and prefer the recent software over the stabilized one. With t

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Le Monday 15 December 2008 23:19:55 Bastian Venthur, vous avez écrit : > > Note that forking+stable'izing Sid is what Ubuntu does every six months. > > Is that important? Unstable is frozen for nearly 1/2 year now, that's a > problem we should try to solve if we don't want to degrade ourselves to >

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Didier Raboud schrieb: > Bastian Venthur wrote: >> currently during the freeze: >> >> unstable (frozen) > testing > stable >> >> new: >> >> unstable || unstable (frozen) > testing > stable > > That's > > http://wiki.debian.org/AddAnotherRepositoryBetweenUnstableAndTesting > > Which

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur wrote: > Didier Raboud schrieb: >> Bastian Venthur wrote: >>> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important >>> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected >>> from the unstable > testing > stable flow. >>> >>> Another way to see i

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:41:06PM +, Noah Slater wrote: > > You failed "Basic research 101". And it was as simple as going to > > and read the Lenny freeze announcement > > that > > is > > linked

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Hmmm. Thinking about it again: * For now, until the Lenny Release, there is testing-proposed-updates, which should maybe pushed more for users and DD's to use. * http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals has enough thoughts about possible changes. Maybe develop ideas further more directly in the w

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Didier Raboud schrieb: > Bastian Venthur wrote: >> Something like that, I don't really care about the name. The important >> thing is, that unstable is never frozen, but temporarily disconnected >> from the unstable > testing > stable flow. >> >> Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur wrote: > Didier Raboud schrieb: >> Bastian Venthur wrote: >>> What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen, >>> maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary >>> and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go >>>

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur (15/12/2008): > Another way to see it is that unstable is constantly flowing and we're > just forking a stable distribution from it from time to time. It's called Ubuntu. Mraw, SCNR, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Didier Raboud schrieb: > Bastian Venthur wrote: >> What I'd like to see is a solution where unstable is *never* frozen, >> maybe by replacing the current frozen unstable with something temporary >> and putting it between unstable and testing, where all the fixes go >> while all the new stuff can st

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur wrote: > Russell Coker schrieb: > [...] >> While changes to the processes for uploading new packages are probably >> not desirable when a freeze is starting, it seems that Lenny might be >> delayed for >> a while. So if the GR on the Lenny release ends up actually changing >> anyt

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Bastian Venthur (15/12/2008): > Some suggest to cherry pick packages from experimental, but first some > packages like the kernel aren't even available there and second, AFAICT since kernel people are already busy with getting the kernel in shape for lenny. Not because of some classification. IMH

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

Russell Coker schrieb: [...] > While changes to the processes for uploading new packages are probably not > desirable when a freeze is starting, it seems that Lenny might be delayed for > a while. So if the GR on the Lenny release ends up actually changing > anything then I suggest that we make

Re: problems with the concept of unstable -> testing

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 09:30:33PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > You mean, something like experimental? > > You failed "Basic research 101". And it was as simple as going to > and read the Lenny freeze announcement >

  1   2   >