>>>>> "wesley" == Wesley J Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
wesley> On Wednesday 13 April 2005 08:12, Patrick A. Ouellette wesley> wrote: >> PROPOSAL FOR DISCUSSION: >> >> I suggest we can eliminate the traditional concept of a >> "release" with the addition of another step in the progression >> from unstable to stable. Additionally, all promotion of >> packages from one step to the next will be automated according >> to strict rules. >> >> The progression I see is: >> >> unstable -> testing -> candidate -> stable wesley> I like the spirit of this idea, although I'm sure the wesley> details need a lot of working over. (This could, but wesley> wouldn't need to *replace* releases--it could simply wesley> augment the release creation process.) wesley> I'm interested to hear other's ideas on why this is/is not wesley> a good idea, and what technical/logistical hurdles would wesley> prevent this from being done. Maybe a better approuch could be a more restrict testing rules and then remove the need of one temporary distribution (candidate, in this case). I think if we have a testing more close then now we can have it in releasable state faster and then allow releases more frequently but I can be wrong. -- O T A V I O S A L V A D O R --------------------------------------------- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://www.freedom.ind.br/otavio --------------------------------------------- "Microsoft gives you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]