Lars Wirzenius writes: > Er, no. The point is to get things tested and hopefully fixed before > uploading to unstable. Experimental might work, but then packages there > need to be tested with the existing unstable in ways they are not, as > far as I know, currently being tested.
I disagree. The point of unstable ought to be to test and hopefully fix things before they propagate to testing. U*un*u seems capable of making progress here; we seem more interested in non-developers running unstable. However, I think your point that developers need to be more diligent in testing things is entirely correct. The fact that we still need users to test unstable means that we are not picking up the slack. People ought to become maintainers because they want to do that, not because they want to add their favorite software. This is only IMHO, of course. I know I have been bad at it, and there is certianly a lot of inertia associated with current expectations of what we are providing. I haven't been in #debian for a while, but the fact that there is *ever* a "F*CKED: unstable" /topic in there (if they also use that kind of language) is absurd. To reiterate, I don't think there should be less testing of unstable. I think there should be *more* testing of unstable by the people who are motivated and qualified. We all volunteered for this job, right? (I had no problems with using xorg from experimental that were not trivial and already being fixed, FWIW. And compiling from an unstable chroot/using piuparts should not be difficult for anyone.) (I also have two computers sitting next to me; the one that needs to actually stay up and running uses etch. You may probably be running stable on something, even.) -- things change. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]