On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:28:58AM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:01:16AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote: > > mini rant: what's the point in breaking important packages in > > unstable for significant periods (e.g. the bug above was filed > > 2005/07/13)? Isn't experimental more appropriate for stuff like this? > > Where would you like us to do our work? This is exactly what unstable is > *for*. It lets us break things while they're in development in order to > push the distro as a whole forward.
No, that's what experimental is for. If you upload something to unstable, it should be ready to migrate to testing in a short period. And it would be best that you could "prove" that it's ready to go to testing before you upload it to unstable. I really think that anything with has a alot of reverse dependencies (let's say 10 or something), should be uploaded to experimental before doing any kind of transition and should contact the release team that they plan to do so. I think this should be done for everything that has the potential to break something. This of course includes shared libraries that have to go thru an soname change, but really should include most things that have reverse dependencies. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
