On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:05:24 +0100, Darren Salt
wrote:
>I demand that Roland Mas may or may not have written...
>> And if I may join the bikeshedding, let me suggest we rename “testing”
>> to “staging”,
>
>"nextstable"? ;-)
>
>(Not "newstable", though. That could be confusing.)
notyetstable
Grüß
I demand that Roland Mas may or may not have written...
[snip]
> And if I may join the bikeshedding, let me suggest we rename “testing”
> to “staging”,
"nextstable"? ;-)
(Not "newstable", though. That could be confusing.)
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt| linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashi
Fernando Lemos, 2010-09-27 17:26:16 -0300 :
[...]
>> I'm fine with an incentive. An official promise by the project that
>> unstable and testing (or rolling) *will* be usable, on the other hand,
>> makes me really nervous.
>
> I recommend that you watch the BoF video, if you haven't already. Jo
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Roland Mas wrote:
>> Well, we know that fully 27% of popcon-reporting users already use
>> unstable or testing. So in general, developers already have an incentive
>> to keep unstable and testing usable for those users, not just stable.
>
> I'm fine wi
Joey Hess, 2010-09-27 15:26:10 -0400 :
> Roland Mas wrote:
>> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
>> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
>> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
>> upgrades from any versi
Roland Mas wrote:
> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
> upgrades from any version younger than X months (as has been
> sugges
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 14:21:12 +0200 :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
>> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
>> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
>> >
>> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take i
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
> >
> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take is that the people who
> > only care about rolling would
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 10:16:50 +0200 :
[...]
>> > Again it's unrelated to the existence of rolling, the problem is
>> > inactive maintainer not taking care of their packages and those are
>> > not the same that would actively push their packages to rolling.
>>
>> What do you base this on?
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> I'm not against having a constant useable testing, on the contrary. I
> just don't see why we want to choose for working around the problems we
> currently have with testing instead of fixing them for everyone.
You seem to be basing your
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
> > I think that having an official "rolling" release always available would
> > reduce the pressure of maintainers to always push the latest into the next
> > stable release precisely because there's an alternative... so it would
> > rather help concernin
Hi Raphael
On 09/26/2010 08:40 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
>> obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
>> often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or no
Hi Luk,
thanks for your valuable comments.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
> Of course there are multiple reasons. Though I think one of the most
> obvious ones is that we as a project don't do a genuine stable release
> often so sometimes delay the freeze willingly or not. Another reason
>
On 09/26/2010 05:02 PM, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Why would non-frequent snapshots help more than frequent snapshots?
>>
>> Because in that case they could really be used and supported for
>> installing, better user testing, security...
>
> I
On 09/26/2010 04:40 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi Luk,
Hi Lucas
Note that this is my personal opinion and does not represent the opinion
of the Release Team perse.
> On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
>> question: W
Hey,
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Luk Claes wrote:
> IMHO, what is missing from rolling should be added to testing, not
> worked around by introducing another suite:
I believe it's the other way around, actually. To me, adding stuff to
testing is the workaround. Testing is not meant to be u
Hi Luk,
On 26/09/10 at 15:55 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> I think this is completely the wrong question, we'd better ask the
> question: Why do freezes have to take that long?
I would be interested in hearing your answer to that question. It would
help to understand the rest of your mail. It seems t
Hi Raphael
On 09/23/2010 02:30 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
>>> discussing CUT on -de...@.
>>> Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
>>
>> Personally I have th
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:30:30 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Personally I would like to have snapshots every 2 or 3 months. Colin
> Watson pointed out in an LWN comment (http://lwn.net/Articles/406597/):
> | There's a good chance that CUT could serve a dual purpose of making it
> | easier to prepar
Hi Luk,
thanks for your comment!
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
> > Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
> > discussing CUT on -de...@.
> > Free link: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
>
> Personally I have the feeling that if we would
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
>>> CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
>>
>> discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
> > discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
> >
>
> It's still looks we
On 23/09/10 at 10:40 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
> > discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
> > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
> >
>
> It's still l
On 09/23/2010 09:00 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Raphael's article is now published, and is probably a good basis for
> discussing CUT on -de...@. Free link:
> http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/406301/bd522adc828b3461/
>
It's still looks weired to me to have to read this article there (I
mean, _o
On 22/09/10 at 15:01 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> > CUT discussions at debconf10 and recent news of the birth of Linux Mint
>
> discussions on CUT have continued after debconf on the CUT mailing. I
> wrote a summary of the discussion
25 matches
Mail list logo
