On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages > > *out* of unstable. > > Really? So now, unstable should be maintained in a releasable state > *too*?
Not necessarily; but as packages in testing can only arrive there after moving through unstable, unstable will need to be rather sane, too. -- .../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/ ../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ ..../ / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/ -.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ / ../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ ..../ -./ ---/ .-../ ---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
