Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

Larry Lawrence larry at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 12:06:54 PDT 2004


"Matthew Burgess" <matthew at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message
news:20040601194613.3b517a31.matthew at linuxfromscratch.org...
>>The differences of opinion really do
> > come down to:
> >
> > Do you put Unstable into Test when it becomes stable
>
> Yes.
>
> > OR Do you pull Unstable from Test when it proves unstable.
>
> No.
>
> > The community prefers the latter, something I will probably never
> > understand.
>
> I think the confusion regarding our approach has been caused by the now
> defunct b6_0 branch.  I thought this was already covered in the
> cvs-structure document?  Maybe it wasn't clear enough?  I'd like to see
> unstable tagged at particular points in time when it is deemed stable
> enough to receive wider testing.  *If* that wider testing proves the
> instability of a particular feature, then of course, corrective actions
> will need to be taken.  These may be simply providing patches(as in this
> udev/hotplug issue), or backing out the feature entirely, if luck has
> dictated that the only boxes that will support the feature happen to be
> HEAD maintainers machines.

> Cheers,
>
> Matt.

I am glad we agree in theory, unfortunatly, your paragraph exemplifies the
latter, IMO.

Larry





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list