On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 02:04:25AM +0000, Hans-Joachim Picht wrote: > > I've decided to ask this question here, in the hope to get feedback > > from both the developers and the (potential) users of Owl -- > > As far as it seems not many people seem to be on this list or are likely > to give feedback :( Yes, only 60 subscribers here so far and most would leave giving feedback for others or wouldn't post it to the list. ;-) > > Do we need an Owl 0.2-prerelease (possible in a few weeks from now) > > and then its corresponding stable branch (to replace 0.1-stable)? > > I would not release a second stable relase, only bugfixes and patches > and a couple of current-snapshots in order to make extensive testing > possible, parallel to the direct current tree availabe on the ftp > mirrors. Is extensive testing not possible without older current-snapshots? There're not that many bugs being discovered to require exact version information in bug reports. It really makes sense to make a current-snapshot right before likely breaking current with newer glibc and Linux-PAM, but then it's not very different from making an 0.2-prerelease. The only difference is that it wouldn't be maintained, is that what you meant? Then if a really bad bug is found in it, people who decided to actually use it (as I expect it to be quite stable in practice) would have to downgrade that piece to its version in 0.1-stable, or remove it from the system if there's no 0.1-stable equivalent. Yes, that's a possibility. BTW, at DataForce ISP we already use post-0.1 Owl-current, including on two virtual hosting servers (about 600 hosted domains). So we will actually need at least a pre-broken current-snapshot ourselves. ;-) > > The situation is this. Right now, Owl-current is binary-compatible > > with 0.1-prerelease/stable in the sense that both upgrades to -current > > and downgrades to -stable are possible with "make installworld" and > > individual packages from -current may be installed on 0.1-stable. > > As most of the the major distributions gnu/linux distributions have a > stable and unstable branch, f.ex running kernel 2.2 and glibc2.1 in in > stable and kernel 2.4 with glibc 2.2.* in unstable a upgrade is possible > but a downgrade would be a bloody job. That's exactly my point, and the question was -- should we bother to release and maintain a stable branch that has everything we already managed to get into current before breaking the downgrade possibility and actually making current unstable for a few months. Right now it has a few extra packages and extra features in older packages, and I expect it to have more before the big changes to core components. -- /sd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Sun Jan 15 2006 - 13:43:14 PST