On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not
propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as
being part of unstable at freeze time. Probably a separate repo for
frozen unstable is needed.
On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 13:44 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not
propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as
being part of unstable at freeze
[0] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals
Nice page, will study it in more detail in due time. I did not see my
proposal there, is it possible to add new information to that page?
It's a wiki. Just create an account an log in.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
The
Quoting Svante Signell (2013-01-12 13:59:02)
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On
Le samedi 12 janvier 2013 15:21:24, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
I recommend instead of redefining logic of unstable, branch off new
suites with new logic.
...and then back to that issue of maintainers should concentrate on the
release again: I do sincerely worry that additional suites
On 01/12/2013 08:59 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Doesn't this diminish significantly the advantages of CUT? Back in the
days of the CUT discussion, one of the main issues associated to
testing is that it stops rolling during freezes.
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:50 +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Le samedi 12 janvier 2013 15:21:24, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
I recommend instead of redefining logic of unstable, branch off new
suites with new logic.
...and then back to that issue of maintainers should concentrate on
On 12.01.2013 16:11, Svante Signell wrote:
Or to say it differently:
experimental being really for new stuff
unstable unfrozen always:
- stable+1 if no freeze
- stable+2 if in freeze
- and stable+1=unstable at the freeze time.
This is similar to what used to happen before the testing suite
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 17:14 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On 12.01.2013 16:11, Svante Signell wrote:
Or to say it differently:
experimental being really for new stuff
unstable unfrozen always:
- stable+1 if no freeze
- stable+2 if in freeze
- and stable+1=unstable at the freeze time.
[ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
On Jan 11, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
I probably should have already sent a message a while ago on this, but
yes the monthly snapshots have been put on hiatus during the freeze.
The official d-i betas and release candidates are recommended now so
that they get
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut'
link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it can be
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:03:25 +0800
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
as stable (instead of just a
Hi Neil,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 09:58:48 CET Neil Williams wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:03:25 +0800
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
an initial target of supporting oldstable
Hi Thomas,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 07:03:25 CET Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
as stable (instead of just a year) is a good
Hi pabs,
On Sa 05 Jan 2013 02:50:47 CET Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Slightly different approach: However, for serious server deployments we in
Debian might want to think about supporting older releases a little longer
than atm.
A scheme like
On 01/06/2013 02:02 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I agree. It would be nice if it was at least possible to upload security
updates
right now to old-stable, even if that wasn't officially supported. At
least, this
would be a nice way to go forward (eg: based on best effort, and
without
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 02:44:42 +0800
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 01/06/2013 02:02 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I agree. It would be nice if it was at least possible to upload security
updates
right now to old-stable, even if that wasn't officially supported. At
Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 05:44:57, The Wanderer a écrit :
That doesn't seem to match my experience.
I most commonly encounter apt-listbugs bug lists via 'apt-get
dist-upgrade'. If I say no in response to the list of bugs, and then run
'apt-get dist-upgrade' again, I see the same list of
On 01/04/2013 09:15 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Le vendredi 4 janvier 2013 05:44:57, The Wanderer a écrit :
That doesn't seem to match my experience.
I most commonly encounter apt-listbugs bug lists via 'apt-get
dist-upgrade'. If I say no in response to the list of bugs, and then run
Im adding the cut-team to the loop. Original message:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00082.html
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez
clo...@igalia.com wrote:
AFAIK there is already an ongoing effort to provide an usable updated
rolling release of Debian.
Hi Alberto, hi all,
On Do 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 CET alberto fuentes wrote:
Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about the 6 months release thing. Without further ado, here's
the proposal
What is the defference:
1. Insert a new stage between stable and testing
and
2. double the period of automatic migration from unstable to testing?
m? :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 10:09:42PM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Hi Alberto, hi all,
Hi Mike
On Do 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 CET alberto fuentes wrote:
Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
Slightly different approach: However, for serious server deployments we in
Debian might want to think about supporting older releases a little longer
than atm.
A scheme like
veryoldstable - oldstable - stable - testing - unstable
From
On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut'
link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it can be set on
sources.list and forgotten
Yes, we need to
On 01/05/2013 09:50 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
Please check out these links if you want to make this happen. Probably
an initial target of supporting oldstable for the same length of time
as stable (instead of just a year) is a good first goal to achieve
before adding more supported suites.
I
Ubuntu has done some poor decisions but it has done some other that are
okay. We should consider merging some of them back.
Im thinking about the 6 months release thing. Without further ado, here's
the proposal pre-draft:
_Proposal_:
Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called
On 03/01/13 19:18, alberto fuentes wrote:
Request for comments!
AFAIK there is already an ongoing effort to provide an usable updated
rolling release of Debian.
http://joeyh.name/code/debian/cut/
http://cut.debian.net/
Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
signature.asc
On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:18:27 +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
The only ways to prevent this if you are running the more or less
up-to-date testing are:
* Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
- Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
the pinning system
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 11:45:45PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
* Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
- Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
the pinning system works
No and yes.
No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
* Pin packages with RC bugs on upgrade. This is:
- Non trivial: it makes you understand how bad the bug is and know how
the pinning system works
No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/03/2013 08:15 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
http://cut.debian.net/
Isn't this (more or less) what you are asking for?
Isn't this (more or less) dead?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment:
On 01/03/2013 06:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 05:12:03 +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
No, because apt-listbugs exists and provides a nice interface so users
don't have to care about pinning details for themselves.
Can apt-listbugs do anything more than abort the
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 7:18 PM, alberto fuentes paj...@gmail.com wrote:
_Proposal_:
Add a new release stage between stable and testing. Called usable or
whatever name we find fit for it
stable - usable - testing - sid
Migrate packages after a period* in testing without RC bugs.
*a 2-4
36 matches
Mail list logo
