On Fri, Jul 13, 2001 at 12:46:52PM +0400, solar@private wrote: Hi, > > 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 :( > 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. > > 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. > We're planning to break this before 1.0, supporting upgrades to it > only. However, 1.0 is going to take months to release, and during > that time it may be desirable to use the additional packages and other > improvements we'll manage to get into -current after 0.1-prerelease > but before we break binary compatibility. This is why the question. I don't have a problem using a stable release on some sort of production system and unstable on a development platform, even if I not yet running any production systems using your distribution. -- With best regards Hans - Joachim Picht <hans@private>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Sun Jan 15 2006 - 13:43:14 PST