On Thu, Mar 15, 2007, Josselin Mouette wrote: > I've always considered the latest version this way, and was hoping other > people were doing the same. If you believe changing the name to "trunk" > can help that, then let it be, but it's a bit annoying to see a name > change - which will mess up the whole history of the repository - for > such a frivolous reason. Admittedly, it will help us in the future to > always keep the correct history in the trunk.
Well, I sometimes worked on unstable/ for urgent fixes, and had to merge later. This also means the commits are compressed into a single one. :-/ > You should also consider that, without a clear separation between > experimental and unstable, we lose the view of which packages have been > uploaded to which archive. Of course, there are some web summaries, but > they don't give such a clear view when actually working on the packages. I'm not sure what you mean here; we would still have unstable/ and experimental/. > > > This, I disagree with. We have experimental for that purpose. We should > > > not make the current situation (experimental as a staging area for > > > already stable upstream packages) the norm. > > Unfortunately, with our current release strategy, there will always be > > a problem between a 6 months upstream version freeze in Debian and a 6 > > months release cycle upstream. > More and more voices are asking for a more aggressive release strategy. > I'd like to know how the lenny release will be handled before making > such decisions. Yes, but since we're Debian, this is not going to happen overnight; let's stop limiting ourselves. :-) > Furthermore, > there's little point in building packages if no one uses them. I'm sure you see/saw the pressure for 2.16, and the 2.18 pressure is already there (well, it's on the IRC chan and someone filed a bug against evolution to get 2.10). People want the latest crap! :) -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
