On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:05:24 +0100, Darren Salt
li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
I demand that Roland Mas may or may not have written...
And if I may join the bikeshedding, let me suggest we rename “testing”
to “staging”,
nextstable? ;-)
(Not newstable, though. That could be
I demand that Roland Mas may or may not have written...
[snip]
And if I may join the bikeshedding, let me suggest we rename “testing”
to “staging”,
nextstable? ;-)
(Not newstable, though. That could be confusing.)
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt| linux at youmustbejoking | nr.
Fernando Lemos, 2010-09-27 17:26:16 -0300 :
[...]
I'm fine with an incentive. An official promise by the project that
unstable and testing (or rolling) *will* be usable, on the other hand,
makes me really nervous.
I recommend that you watch the BoF video, if you haven't already. Joey
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
I think that having an official rolling release always available would
reduce the pressure of maintainers to always push the latest into the next
stable release precisely because there's an alternative... so it would
rather help concerning this
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I'm not against having a constant useable testing, on the contrary. I
just don't see why we want to choose for working around the problems we
currently have with testing instead of fixing them for everyone.
You seem to be basing your
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 10:16:50 +0200 :
[...]
Again it's unrelated to the existence of rolling, the problem is
inactive maintainer not taking care of their packages and those are
not the same that would actively push their packages to rolling.
What do you base this on? It does not
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
Nobody can predict the future... but my take is that the people who
only care about rolling would be the
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 14:21:12 +0200 :
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
Nobody can predict the future... but my take is that the
Roland Mas wrote:
At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
upgrades from any version younger than X months (as has been
Joey Hess, 2010-09-27 15:26:10 -0400 :
Roland Mas wrote:
At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
upgrades from any version
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Roland Mas lola...@debian.org wrote:
Well, we know that fully 27% of popcon-reporting users already use
unstable or testing. So in general, developers already have an incentive
to keep unstable and testing usable for those users, not just stable.
Hi Raphael
On 09/23/2010 02:30 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@.
Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
Personally I have the feeling
Hi Luk,
On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
question: Why do freezes have to take that long?
I would be interested in hearing your answer to that question. It would
help to understand the rest of your mail. It seems to
Hey,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
IMHO, what is missing from rolling should be added to testing, not
worked around by introducing another suite:
I believe it's the other way around, actually. To me, adding stuff to
testing is the workaround. Testing is not
On 09/26/2010 04:40 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi Luk,
Hi Lucas
Note that this is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion
of the Release Team perse.
On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
question: Why do
On 09/26/2010 05:02 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes l...@debian.org wrote:
Why would non-frequent snapshots help more than frequent snapshots?
Because in that case they could really be used and supported for
installing, better user testing, security...
Hi Luk,
thanks for your valuable comments.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or not. Another reason
Hi Raphael
On 09/26/2010 08:40 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or not.
On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi all,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing. I
wrote a summary of the discussion that
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired to me to have to read this article there (I
mean, _only_
On 23/09/10 at 10:40 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
It's still looks weired to me
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Hi all,
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing.
Hi Luk,
thanks for your comment!
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
discussing CUT on -de...@.
Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
Personally I have the feeling that if we would choose
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:30:30 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Personally I would like to have snapshots every 2 or 3 months. Colin
Watson pointed out in an LWN comment (http://lwn.net/Articles/406597/):
| There's a good chance that CUT could serve a dual purpose of making it
| easier to prepare
25 matches
Mail list logo
