On 11 October 2010 20:01, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[email protected]> writes: >> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better >>> place. > >> So why not create a better place? > > What specifically is wrong with experimental? In other words, what > problem are you trying to fix other than that you don't like the name?
Look at Iceweasel for a concrete example. We have an embarrassing situation where the latest *stable* release, which has been amply tested by *millions* of users worldwide ends up in the experimental branch. It's not there because we actually think it's experimental, or bad enough that it could potentially incur data loss due to bugs. No, Iceweasel is in experimental due to vagaries of our release cycle that non-developers should not concern themselves with. So the promises implied by the spectrum of answers to "do you want it new, xor do you want it stable?" gets broken during freeze time because the usual place to upload untested software is occupied by the freeze cycle. That is what I don't like. I think it could be done in a better way. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
