On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Anyway, I'd like to ask you all to hold off the discussion for a few hours > until everybody can read the summary of the CUT discussions and have a > clearer ideas of the proposals and the implications. hm... did you mean http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/ "A constantly usable testing distribution for Debian" [LWN subscriber-only content] ?
if indeed, taken on the reasoning that "testing" is a bad name and "rolling" is better, then it goes similar to what I saw behind 'constatly present' testing up to replacing rolling -> testing ->[removal of packages] -> frozen now about 'pending': following description confused me quite a bit: ... during a freeze, testing is no longer automatically updated, which makes it inappropriate to feed the rolling distribution. That's why rolling would be reconfigured to grab updates from unstable (but using the same rules as testing). But unstable remains to serve as the entry point to feed frozen testing as well, so with absent other entry-point (pending in my scenario) there is a conflict -- I can't upload 1 version which I intend to get to frozen testing and another one to get into rolling (experimental obviously can't serve as such). or it all would go through an addendum (*-proposed-updates)? -- .-. =------------------------------ /v\ ----------------------------= Keep in touch // \\ (yoh@|www.)onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko /( )\ ICQ#: 60653192 Linux User ^^-^^ [175555] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100923022237.gw12...@onerussian.com