Hi Teodor/Bruce, On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Teodor MICU wrote: > I've been disappointed at first to read that so many approve this > "rolling" implementation that in fact is just "c-u-t", constantly > usable testing [1]! Outside of the freeze period it doesn't really > matter and one can say rolling==cut.
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:36:04AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote: > On May 9, 2011 08:48:25 am Teodor MICU wrote: > > To conclude, "unstable-next" suite (or some other name [2]) is a > > requirement for "rolling" [3]. > > ...unless the nature of experimental is changed, and its current function > replaced with PPA's? DEP-10 is focused entirely on how we can avoid and/or circumvent the freeze process (for things not concerning the next stable release), which is helpful by itself but also a key part of a working rolling release, I'd say. I'm trying to cover most of the ideas discussed in the previous mega-thread for how this could be done, including both of the "unstable-updates" and the "PPA's" approach, and maybe a couple more. I'm still putting meat onto the document but in the next couple days I'll bring it back on list for a more thorough discussion. So please keep any ideas you have about either of these approaches readily available :) sean -- 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/20110510055244.ga21...@cobija.connexer.com