On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:53 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer wrote: > ---- Wei Chen wrote: > > So I'd say that maybe Stable is really not for Desktop use. > > Testing is the best choice because it is neither too dangerous > > nor too old. > > What do you think about adding a new release type maybe called > "current"? Then our release structure would look like this: > > ------------- > | Unstable |------ > ------------- | > | | > | | > ----------- | > | Testing | | > ----------- | > | | > -------------------- | > | | | > ---------- ----------- > | Stable | | Current | > ---------- ----------- > > Current would get both security and feature updates. We could > advertise this as the perfect blend of stability and up-to-date > software. Immediately after a release, Current would lag behind > Testing so it would be more stable. Conversely, during the freeze > we might be able to pull some packages from Unstable. > > I am pretty new to Debian so I am sure there are a thousand > reasons why the above is a bad idea, or just too hard to > implement. But it seems like it's worth discussing. And before > anyone gives me a hard time let me say, "I am not complaining".
a Debian "current" distro == Ubuntu at the moment. And no, it would be on par with stable. It would be unstable, with "stabilization" patches or something like "Sidux" -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Novell's Directory Services is a competitive product to Microsoft's Active Directory in much the same way that the Saturn V is a competitive product to those dinky little model rockets that kids light off down at the playfield. -- Thane Walkup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
