On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:35, Olivier Cr�te wrote: > A few points... > > On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 15:55, Kurt Lieber wrote: > > * Could cause problems if some of the security updates have newer deps that > > are otherwise not included in the stable tree. > > Security updates should be back-ported if the deps can't be met... I > dont see how we can get around that... and call it stable... But that's > not an infrastructure matter, I agree.. But as soon as anything called > like stable is implemented we are going to have to discuss QA stuff..
I was wondering what stable actually means, so I looked it up in the dictionary. Here's the definition I found most suitable to our purpose: 3a. Consistently dependable; steadfast of purpose. Now, I see nothing that implies that "dependable" means "can't upgrade." What's your argument that makes backports superior to upgrades for bug fixes? Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks, Donnie
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
