Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

Jeremy Utley jeremy at jutley.org
Tue Jun 1 12:25:22 PDT 2004


Larry Lawrence wrote:

>"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
>  
>

Testing is by default not known stable, Larry.  That's why it's called 
"Testing".  The whole purpose is to work out the bugs that might have 
been missed while in the unstable phase, if any.

-J-




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list