Decouple Lenny from Unstable

[Matthew Rosewarne]

On Thursday 01 January 2009, Beojan Stanislaus wrote:
> I understand this isn't the best list for this, but the mail about
> including krypt gave me an idea. I think that once Lenny, or any other
> release,is frozen, it should be decoupled from unstable, because packages
> only propagate manually, in exceptional circumstances, so such a decoupling
> could mean that development could continue on unstable, the bleeding-edge,
> with frozen separately developing to release. This would allow, in this
> case, for KDE4 to be put into unstable without needing to wait for Lenny.

Aaron Seigo actually suggested doing that with KDE development as well.  
Instead of gradually freezing trunk as a release approaches, release work 
would be done in a branch while trunk remains active.  This approach has the 
potential pitfall of people not paying as much attention to stabilizing for 
release, but if done well could result in a much more fluid development model.

%!PS: <understatement>Of course, you could say that not everyone has been 
pleased with some of Aaron's previous release practices... </understatement>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20090101/605b558f/attachment.pgp