[0] http://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseProposals
Nice page, will study it in more detail in due time. I did not see my
proposal there, is it possible to add new information to that page?
It's a wiki. Just create an account an log in.
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@l
On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 13:44 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not
> > propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as
> > being part of unstable at fre
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 06:55:04PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> Of course there was a reason for introducing testing. And I did not
> propose it to go away either. It should stay for packages marked as
> being part of unstable at freeze time. Probably a separate repo for
> frozen unstable is need
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 17:14 +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 12.01.2013 16:11, Svante Signell wrote:
> > Or to say it differently:
> > experimental being really for new stuff
> > unstable unfrozen always:
> > - stable+1 if no freeze
> > - stable+2 if in freeze
> > - and stable+1=unstable at the f
On 12.01.2013 16:11, Svante Signell wrote:
Or to say it differently:
experimental being really for new stuff
unstable unfrozen always:
- stable+1 if no freeze
- stable+2 if in freeze
- and stable+1=unstable at the freeze time.
This is similar to what used to happen before the testing suite exis
On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 15:50 +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le samedi 12 janvier 2013 15:21:24, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
> >
> > I recommend instead of redefining logic of unstable, branch off new
> > suites with new logic.
> >
> > ...and then back to that issue of "maintainers should concen
On 01/12/2013 08:59 PM, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Doesn't this diminish significantly the advantages of CUT? Back in the
>> days of the CUT discussion, one of the main "issues" associated to
>> testing is that it stops rolling during fre
Le samedi 12 janvier 2013 15:21:24, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit :
>
> I recommend instead of redefining logic of unstable, branch off new
> suites with new logic.
>
> ...and then back to that issue of "maintainers should concentrate on the
> release" again: I do sincerely worry that additional suite
Quoting Svante Signell (2013-01-12 13:59:02)
> On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > [ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 16:05 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
On Jan 11, 2013, at 7:05 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I probably should have already sent a message a while ago on this, but
>> yes the monthly snapshots have been put on hiatus during the freeze.
>> The official d-i betas and release candidates are recommended now so
>> that they get suffici
[ dropping -www, setting Mail-Followup-To: cut-team ]
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:06:00PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
> >> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 01/05/2013 01:28 AM, alberto fuentes wrote:
>> The few people on the list seems happy with it. If this is working
>> well, it needs a little more love on debian.org and a 'testing-cut'
>> link in the repos pointing to latest cut, so it ca
13 matches
Mail list logo
