Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:33:49PM -0800, Brian Nelson wrote: >> All I'm trying to say is that if Emacs CVS snapshots are uploaded to >> unstable, it should be done with the intention of releasing it in a >> stable Debian release. > > Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on your arguments, but I think your > conclusion is bogus. > > Emacs cvs snapshots _definitely_ belong in unstable, but I'm not sure they > belong in stable. Not because they aren't (usually) quite solid, but because > the advantage they have over released emacs versions -- frequent updates, and > the ability to reflect where emacs development is heading at the moment -- is > lost in stable. > > IOW, unstable is _not_ just `stable to be' (though it's _mostly_ that).
That's you opinion, and no offense, but it doesn't matter. The only opinion that really matters is that of the RM, and he stated his opinion here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/debian-devel-announce-200308/msg00010.html And in particular: In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging greater usage of experimental. The plan here is that you should upload the latest, release-quality packages to unstable; and the latest development packages to experimental. This means daily snapshots, CVS versions, alphas, pre-releases and so forth. If you're currently maintaining a foo-snapshot package in unstable, you should consider dropping the -snapshot, and uploading it to experimental. It also means you should make an extra effort to ensure that what you put in unstable is maintained at the quality you'd expect from a Debian stable release, although obviously with far more frequent changes. You won't always succeed, unless you're some sort of packaging God, but that should definitely be your aim. > Maybe permanent RC bugs an ugly mechanism to achieve this, but it works for > the most part; is there some way of marking such a bug so that it will be > obvious that it's not a `real bug' (and e.g. won't freak out people that are > obsessing over RC bug counts)? There are other problems as well. Consider that elisp packages typically depend on "emacs21 | xemacs21". If you package emacs-cvs, then those elisp packages should support that too, right? But then those packages would be depending upon a package that would never exist in stable, which is an RC bug. > [Experimental, in its current form, is basically a ghetto of sorts: not only > is it not auto-built, but people by and large don't use it unless they have > some special interest in a package which they already _know_ is in > experimental, and there's something of an expectation that packages there > have problems of one sort or another.] Isn't that exactly the type of user that Emacs CVS should be targeting? -- Don't worry, it's *in*-flammable.
