On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:45:31PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > I think it's time we reopen the discussion on what stable means and what > it should mean. > > To start with, [1] says that a package is only uploaded to stable when > it meets one of these criteria: > > * it fixes a truly critical functionality problem > > * the package becomes uninstallable > > * a released architecture lacks the package
I would love to have "the new package for stable eases future update" as this would allow to fix stable issues which would otherwise cause future grief to fix. For example, a more allowing policy would allow exim 3 to warn against new installations and in turn motivate people to update to exim3 before they take the etch plunge. > Examples of things that should happen in stable, but haven't been > happening reliably: > > * Kernel updates with more broad hardware support > > * Infrastructure updates such as ClamAV and Spamassassin > > * Security and other important Firefox updates I think we have volatile for this, allowing people to choose whether they need absolute stability or new infrastructure. Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
