LFS-6.0 print process
jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jul 8 09:58:14 PDT 2004
Ian Molton said the following on 08-07-2004 18:35:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:43:08 +0200
> Jeroen Coumans <jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
>>>testing should be where we distill the best parts of unstable and test / stabilise them, ready to become the next stable.
>>Yes, and rather then add another branch, it would be much easier to work
> I dont see why.
> testing as it is currently proposed is FAR nearer to unstable than stable
Good point. I guess that ideally, we'd have a development team which
works on unstable, and a seperate testing/release team which works on
testing/stable. The testing team would keep up with unstable to merge
small fixes (spelling, new minor package versions, etc.), perhaps
regularly release a new x.x.x release. That way the two wouldn't be so
far apart, and we'd have much easier and frequent releases. For a new
major release, the testing branch would merge the larger, more
structural changes as well, perhaps in a seperate branch.
But it all depends on what people find important and are willing to
spend time on. If everyone is happy with adjusting unstable to become
stable through a testing branch, then that's fine with me. I just don't
want it to become a backdoor through which highly controversial changes
(such as udev, hotplug) get ported into testing/stable without discussion.
More information about the lfs-dev