Paul M Sargent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > OK, Here's a question then. If Woody is unstable, which kernel is it > running?
> Woody should be running 2.3 or pre-2.4. That should have been among the first > things to change. I don't think so. People who are interested in debugging the kernel can install 2.3 themselves; people who are only interested in debugging Mozilla (say) don't want to have new kernel releases trashing their discs every few days. > On a side note. I'm really not sure that this 'release' stuff works on > debian. Coordinating the development cycles of an infinite number of > packages is impossible. What I would like to see is an unstable tree where > all development is done. As packages reach maturity they 'graduate' to the > stable tree. A snapshot of stable tree at any time works. The unstable tree > just becomes a place for developers to share packages. I made roughly this point in a message that seems not to have reached the list. Where there are no complex dependencies, there is no need for packages to be released (i.e. declared "stable") simultaneously. I suggested creating a "stable-test" branch containing packages that are built to run on "stable" without breaking anything in stable or stable-test. When a package maintainer is confident that the version in stable-test is in every way superior to the version in stable he asks the release manager to move that package from stable-test to stable. (I'm not sure how the version numbering would work, but no doubt a numbering scheme could be invented.) Edmund
