Am Dienstag, den 12.06.2007, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Gustavo Franco: > On 6/12/07, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:40, Gustavo Franco wrote: > > > > * What effect do you think removing experimental will have on > > > > unstable? * How do you think it will have that effect? > > > > > > > I think it will have a positive effect if we add 'NotAutomatic: yes' > > > into unstable release file. > > > > Are you also willing to promote uploading packages "that are quite > > probably broken in some ways, but the maintainer still would like to see > > tested" to unstable? > > Promote 'quite probably broken in some ways' stuff isn't the motto. > Upload everything that we've in experimental actually seems to be more > appropriate.
This means uploading of VCS snapshots to unstable, making all unstable users to snapshot testers (see e.g. glibc 2.6 snapshot in experimental). IMHO this is not a good idea. The only ways to workaround this are IMHO: (A) Allow direct upload into testing. That means, testing users are not longer protected against possible serious issues, that would have been normally detected during 10-days-period in unstable. Or (B) rename such packages, so you can have the "stable" and the "development" branch of a package side-by-side in unstable. The latter may work sometimes, but it can also be a horrible situation for the maintainer. But in every case, you will not longer have a branch for testing of packages, "that are quite probably broken in some ways, but the maintainer still would like to see tested". The choice only is: Upload such a package to replace a (very probably) stable and tested branch or don't upload it at all. I cannot see any advantage. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]