On Mon, 01 Nov 2021, Sean Whitton wrote: > Of course we should be exploring the new avenues that you mention. But > becoming more willing to break unstable/testing than we are at present > might also be good for our project.
Maybe, maybe not. What are you basing your assertion on? From my (limited) point of view, Debian testing/unstable is used by many derivatives because it's largely usable and stable, and we do get many contributions due to this. I for one contribute many fixes to Debian because Kali is built on Debian testing. At some point it was based on Debian stable and I was largely not able to contribute to Debian, and if we did break testing/unstable more often, the net result would likely that Kali would switch back to stable. I don't really see any scenario where breaking unstable/testing helps us in any way. Except if the breakage is really limited in time, and if the breakage does not affect upgrade paths, etc. But then I would no longer call that "breaking unstable/testing". Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
