LFS-6.0 print process
spyro at f2s.com
Thu Jul 8 03:31:05 PDT 2004
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:25:07 +0100
Ian Molton <spyro at f2s.com> wrote:
> > But the way it is going to happen is that rather than certain changes
> > being merged from unstable to testing is that at certain points in time
> > unstable will simply *become* testing.
> > That's simply because the people responsible who've often discussed the
> > changes to unstable extensively won't be willing to go through everything
> > again piecemeal, especially not on lfs-dev, where all the conservative
> > naysayers will complain about bloat and immature packages being put into
> > the book.
> WTF ?
Let me expand on that...
unstable can not just become stable - we've tried this and it doesnt work.
Jeroen says make testing from stable. I dont see the point, as this just duplicates unstable in a slower manner.
testing should be where we distill the best parts of unstable and test / stabilise them, ready to become the next stable.
If we dont want people to develop on the bleeding edge, why did we bring the BELFS people back into the book? we should have let them go and carried on plodding along in stable with our original development model.
But it was enar unanimous - we wanted BELFS work to be done in the context of LFS.
So, which is it to be?
1) Accept we need to change the development model and merge with BELFS
2) Keep our heads in the sand and carry on our old way, and let BELFS go its own way
More information about the lfs-dev