Re: beta software ok for unstable? (was: Re: policy Q's WRT imapd)
Hi,
>>"Guy" == Guy Maor <maor@ece.utexas.edu> writes:
Guy> Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> writes:
>> `However, we might consider having a few packages in unstable which
>> will not be included in the `frozen' distribution automatically,
>> for example, if the upstream maintainers don't want us to include
>> it in a stable Debian release.'
Guy> In fact, it might be a good idea to demand for each package an ok
Guy> from the maintainer that this package is in a good enough state
Guy> for a freeze.
If you think this is a workable solution, and that all
maintainers are available at any given time.
I think I prefer a fail safe solution where truly dangerous
packages are kept in experimental, with *no* chance of making it into
stable easily.
I like the degree of separation the experimental area gives us.
manoj
--
"By long-standing tradition, I take this opportunity to savage other
designers in the thin disguise of good, clean fun." Plauger, from his
April Fool's column in April 88's "Computer Language"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: