Steve Langasek <> writes:

> It's not necessary to freeze unstable when preparing to release
> testing; this is a significant reason why testing exists as a
> separate suite.

That's exactly what I thought; I'm glad to see a member of the release
team reassert it.

> So in fact, unstable is *not* frozen. It is recommended to treat
> unstable as frozen for libraries [… but I'm of the opinion that the
> pendulum has swung too far the other direction for lenny, with
> maintainers uploading leaf packages to experimental instead of to
> unstable for freeze reasons, when the probability of an upload to
> unstable causing more work for the lenny release is infinitesimal.

Okay. It does, as has been said, seem to be common wisdom currently to
treat ‘unstable’ as effectively verboten until the release of ‘lenny’;
thank you for at least explaining the likely origin of that extreme.

Cyril Brulebois <> writes:

> For more than verbose explanations, see -devel@ a few weeks ago,
> starting at <>.

Thanks, but I was looking not for long discussions but for concise
statements of the official position. I'm grateful to have received it
so promptly.

 \         “What you have become is the price you paid to get what you |
  `\                                 used to want.” —Mignon McLaughlin |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

Reply via email to