Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 14:46 -0400, Jeremy Bicha a écrit : > 3.4.1. For instance, I think we likely want g-c-c 3.4. And if we > delegate 3.3 to a PPA for "safe testing", then we won't get as many > testers as having 3.3 in the main archives.
Right, if we decide that we want to update a component we should land it early in the real distro and not in a ppa only. One thing you didn't consider there is resources. Look at Oneirc, we worked hard but we missed bits from GNOME 3.2 (new gdm, gnome-sushi landed late and wouldn't have landed without you, we didn't get the new webkit or epiphany-browser, etc). We can't say we did a great job to it. The issue is that having to deal with updating 60 packages every 3 weeks then dealing with the bugs from the unstable versions is enough work to keep the team busy full time or almost during the cycle. So yes, GNOME 3.4 would be as stable as 3.2 we have today. But how stable will we get GNOME 3.2 if we focus our team efforts fixing bugs during this months rather than playing catchup on packaging unstable versions? We did that during the natty cycle and we did fix a lot of bugs we didn't have time to look during normal cycle. We need to look a performances as well and to nail the integration issues from GNOME3 we still have and we don't have really the resources to do that polish as well as dealing with the work coming from rolling unstable updates Cheers, Sebastien Bacher -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop