> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > After reading this nice diskussion with all it's aspects, I want to > > complete the mess and suggest a "distribution" called > > e.g. "progressive" beetween stable(frozen) and unstable. > > I gather you haven't read the discussion of package pools in the archive? > > First things first. Let's get potato released, and then get pools and > flavors implemented before we try to release woody. >
I'm all for that if you think the pools idea has any chance of being implented in our lifetime. A really simple way of handling a "progressive" distribution would be to mutate "frozen". After potato ships have frozen become thaw. Thaw would be unstable except there is a lag time between .debs hitting unstable and migrating to thaw. This lag time should be long enough to catch any critical bugs where we could tag the package from moving into thaw until those bugs are fixed. When a new stable is ready to be shipped out we'd simply "freeze" the thaw and prod the developers to fix thier critical bugs. What problems would the above cause? Could we code around issues like say php xx.3 requiring apache xx.3 and apache not hitting thaw due to a crit bug? The system would need to know to keep php xx.3 out until apache become thawable. -Mark
