On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 14:53 -0700, Glen Pfeiffer 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".
There have been a lot of talk and suggestions, for example, Joey Hess described Constantly Usable Testing, it sounds a bit like your suggestion. http://kitenet.net/~joey/code/debian/cut.html Also, there seems to be some interest of making official backports to support new hardware and new releases for typical desktop users. I would be surprised if this didn't happen for the Lenny release, or even sooner. -- Cheers, Sven Arvidsson http://www.whiz.se PGP Key ID 760BDD22
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
