On Saturday, October 23, 2010 08:21:23 you wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:49:41PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> There's no reason Debian freezes must last six months or longer.
>
>Are you serious?
Yes.
>There is nothing in our real life which have no reason to be that way.
>It takes
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:49:41PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
...
> >"Only" during a freeze ends up meaning "six months or longer". You
> >think that's a short time? It's one full Ubuntu release cycle!
>
> There's no reason Debian freezes must last six months or longer. Still, even
Hi!
Am 13.10.2010 16:05, schrieb Alexander Reichle-Schmehl:
Why do fixes to testing have to go through unstable, even during freeze
time?
>>> Because a lot more people use Unstable than use Testing
>> Citation needed.
> Looking at http://popcon.debian.org/ , I see 21548 reports for the
Hi!
Am 13.10.2010 15:11, schrieb Lucas Nussbaum:
> On 11/10/10 at 09:14 -0700, PJ Weisberg wrote:
>> 2010/10/11 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso :
>>> Why do fixes to testing have to go through unstable, even during freeze
>>> time?
>> Because a lot more people use Unstable than use Testing
> Citation nee
On 11/10/10 at 09:14 -0700, PJ Weisberg wrote:
> 2010/10/11 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso :
> > Why do fixes to testing have to go through unstable, even during freeze
> > time?
>
> Because a lot more people use Unstable than use Testing
Citation needed.
- Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-
In , Jordi
Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>I just realised, the packages I'm complaining about are essentially
>squeeze backports. That is, they're packages that the packager wishes
>could have gone into squeeze but can't because of the freeze, so they
>go into experimental instead.
>
>Would it make sen
Firstly, this discussion is extremely off-topic on debian-mentors,
debian-project would have been a better choice.
2010/10/12 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso :
> Now, experimental by default is pinned to lowest priority, and in the
> meantime, during the freeze, your friendly packager is still waiting
>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:44:51 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> I just realised, the packages I'm complaining about are essentially
> squeeze backports. That is, they're packages that the packager wishes
> could have gone into squeeze but can't because of the freeze, so they
> go into experime
Il giorno mar, 12/10/2010 alle 13.59 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso ha
scritto:
> 2010/10/12 Pietro Battiston :
> > But before this conversation goes on forever - which is tipically what
> > happens when people think they are debating on methods and techniques
> > while instead they diverge on moti
I just realised, the packages I'm complaining about are essentially
squeeze backports. That is, they're packages that the packager wishes
could have gone into squeeze but can't because of the freeze, so they
go into experimental instead.
Would it make sense then to start $x-backports as soon as $x
2010/10/12 Pietro Battiston :
> But before this conversation goes on forever - which is tipically what
> happens when people think they are debating on methods and techniques
> while instead they diverge on motivations - does the following satisfy
> you:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/
> http:/
On 12 October 2010 09:24, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
[standard response without actually reading what is being replied to]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.
Il giorno mar, 12/10/2010 alle 08.55 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso ha
scritto:
> On 11 October 2010 19:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> >
>
> >> The *real* problem is that labelling Firefox 3.6 as "experimental" is
> >> downright silly.
> >
> > Hm, okay. I guess I'
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:55:11 -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> On 11 October 2010 19:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> >
>
> >> The *real* problem is that labelling Firefox 3.6 as "experimental" is
> >> downright silly.
> >
> > Hm, okay. I guess I'm not feeling
Hi,
Le 12/10/10 15:55, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso a écrit :
[standard rambling about how freeze slows down unstable development]
I know it's pretty useless to participate in this sort of conversation,
but conversation is not about being useful, right?
> unstable again is again used as it should be
On 11 October 2010 19:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
>
>> The *real* problem is that labelling Firefox 3.6 as "experimental" is
>> downright silly.
>
> Hm, okay. I guess I'm not feeling particularly inspired to do any work
> based on that reaction.
Sorry if I'm frust
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Paul Wise wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
* Firefox 3.6 has faster JavaScript, which is the difference between this
page being usable, and it not: http://openhatch.org/people/. (Admittedly
that's a site under my control, so I can improve it;
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> * Firefox 3.6 has faster JavaScript, which is the difference between this
> page being usable, and it not: http://openhatch.org/people/. (Admittedly
> that's a site under my control, so I can improve it; but there are surely
> other such p
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
I guess so, although I don't personally even use unstable myself for the
aforementioned reasons. However, unstable is used as the "desktop"
version of Debian by a large number of users, and the awkward
development it get
On Monday, October 11, 2010 17:01:16 you wrote:
>On 11 October 2010 20:28, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
>> In , Jordi
>> Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>>On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>>>wrote:
It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better
plac
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> I guess so, although I don't personally even use unstable myself for the
> aforementioned reasons. However, unstable is used as the "desktop"
> version of Debian by a large number of users, and the awkward
> development it gets during freeze time is not really fi
.On 12 October 2010 01:02, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Oh, so the specific problem that you're trying to fix is that you, as an
> unstable user, aren't getting software that you would like to be using
> because unstable is being used for a different purpose during the freeze?
I guess so, although I d
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> So the promises implied by the spectrum of answers to "do you want it
> new, xor do you want it stable?" gets broken during freeze time because
> the usual place to upload untested software is occupied by the freeze
> cycle.
Oh, so the specific problem that you'
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11 October 2010 20:28, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In , Jordi
Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better
place.
So why n
On 11 October 2010 20:01, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
>> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
>>> It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better
>>> place.
>
>> So why not create a better place?
>
> What specifically is wrong with experimental? In o
On 11 October 2010 20:28, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> In , Jordi
> Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> wrote:
>>> It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better
>>> place.
>>
>>So why not create a better place?
>
> Because of
In , Jordi
Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
>>> In , Jordi
>>> Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>>>Does it have to be this way? Why do fixes to testing have to go
>>>through unstable, even during freeze time?
>>>
>> They don't. t-p-u exists for when the
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> It gets used as "unstable+1" during the freeze, since there's no better
>> place.
> So why not create a better place?
What specifically is wrong with experimental? In other words, what
problem are you trying to fix other than
On 11 October 2010 12:11, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> I disagree that *any* package based on a new upstream release is *known* to be
> less buggy than the existing package,
Good, so do I, but in this case, cppcheck is a very infrequently used
Debian package, and it's used widely by other peop
In , Jordi
Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>On 7 October 2010 14:06, Joachim Reichel wrote:
>> I guess what Christoph meant is the following: if you upload 1.45 to
>> unstable you block this way for fixes to 1.44 in testing (and the RM will
>> most probably not allow 1.45 to migrate to testing).
>>
>>
2010/10/11 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso :
> Why do fixes to testing have to go through unstable, even during freeze time?
Because a lot more people use Unstable than use Testing, so
(ironically) Unstable is a better place to do testing.
> Why does experimental become the new unstable during freeze tim
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso writes:
> Does it have to be this way? Why do fixes to testing have to go
> through unstable, even during freeze time?
Because otherwise there isn't any good way to test them with a reasonably
large user base, which is even *more* important during the freeze.
--
Russ Al
On 7 October 2010 14:06, Joachim Reichel wrote:
> I guess what Christoph meant is the following: if you upload 1.45 to unstable
> you block this way for fixes to 1.44 in testing (and the RM will most probably
> not allow 1.45 to migrate to testing).
>
> You could upload 1.45 to experimental for no
33 matches
Mail list logo
