Trackin' stable vs. releases

[Alan DuBoff]

On Thursday 09 May 2002 11:23 pm, Rick Moen wrote:
> No.  Absolutely not.  You seem to be missing the really essential point
> about the quarantining script that populates "testing".

Well, it's not like I've planned this for months, I've been tracking 
unstable, but I want to get to stable. Currently, there is little difference 
between unstable and testing, which makes sense.

I hadn't thought much about the woody release, there was a Debian meeting at 
ALS in Oakland and it seemed. It was actually your post to this list saying 
there could be a release celebration yesterday that made me think to change 
my sources.lst.

> http://people.debian.org/~jules/testingfaq.html

It's #4 that makes we cautious in regards to testing.

> So, testing is the cream of "unstable" packages

Yes, as long as you don't get burned by #4.

> But there's a vital difference in kind:  Regardless of how _many_
> packages are in the delta, the delta is what hasn't passed quality
> checks.

Interesting, the newer files was in testing, and by definition of #2 in the 
above FAQ, this shouldn't be possible because it would have had to be in 
unstable for at least 2 days if it was at the highest urgency.

> Do you mean "it _did_ make sense for me to change to woody _recently_"?
> Because I thought we just settled that your sources.list says "woody",
> _today_.

Yes, in the last day or two as I realized the release is coming to surface.

> But whatever makes you happy.

It's really not critical to me, these are development systems. I could 
reinstall potato rev4 and upgrade to unstable. When I have a woody CD, that's 
what I'll use then. That's pretty significant, the difference between potato 
and woody, it's significant.

> It seemed obvious that you meant the verb affect

You need a nutty brown ale.

-- 

Alan DuBoff
Software Orchestration, Inc.
GPG: 1024D/B7A9EBEE 5E00 57CD 5336 5E0B 288B 4126 0D49 0D99 B7A9 EBEE