On August 19, 2003 at 4:49PM +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging > greater usage of experimental. The plan here is that you should upload the > latest, release-quality packages to unstable; and the latest development > packages to experimental. This means daily snapshots, CVS versions, > alphas, pre-releases and so forth. If you're currently maintaining > a foo-snapshot package in unstable, you should consider dropping the > -snapshot, and uploading it to experimental. It also means you should make > an extra effort to ensure that what you put in unstable is maintained at > the quality you'd expect from a Debian stable release, although obviously > with far more frequent changes. You won't always succeed, unless you're > some sort of packaging God, but that should definitely be your aim. I'm a maintainer of Debian wl/wl-beta packages (Wanderlust: mail/news reader for Emacsen). Debian wl package provides the upstream stable version (latest version is 2.10.1-2). Debian wl-beta package provides the upstream CVS snapshot which reaches Debian release-quality (latest version is 2.11.7+0.20030814-1). I intended to include both wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/ testing/stable. Should we remove Debian wl-beta package from unstable? Should we rename Debian wl/wl-beta packages if we want to put both packages in unstable/testing/stable? (e.g. wl-beta -> wl (latest release-quality package), wl -> wl-stable (more stable package, upstream stable version)) Comments? -- Tatsuya Kinoshita