On Saturday 08 March 2003 22:39, Levi Ramsey wrote: > On Sun Mar 09 11:31 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote: > > On Friday 07 March 2003 11:08 am, George Mitchell wrote: > > > Andi, there is a solution to this problem. That is to maintain a > > > stable version of cooker. Do the actual work of upgrading and fixing > > > various components offline, and merge them into the stable cooker tree > > > only when they have been thoroughly tested. > > > > Debian call this "testing". Why not just make the Drak tools work with > > APT and be done with it? (-: > > I think maybe keeping milestone snapshots of cooker would be a good > thing. These would be less stable than the betas but more stable than > Cooker, thus encouraging more to test out packages that are still in > development. It would also provide more flexibility; if, late in the > devcycle of a version, it becomes apparent that Cooker is not in any > state to base a release of, one of the milestones may be more suitable > for release. > > These milestones would probably better be based on certain criteria > being met, rather than a strict calendar approach. This would, of > course, require that some type of roadmap be laid out for the > development of each version.
I agree (sort of). There are times when it is known that a change in one package will require a number of packages to be rebuilt (e.g. gcc, glibc, kernel). Jumping into the middle of one of these rounds is, at times, pointless and frustrating. A message to this list saying "we're updating xxx pacakges, you might want to hold on for a day or two" would be welcome. Jim Tarvid
