1 |
* Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o> schrieb: |
2 |
|
3 |
> My suggestion, as I said to fosdem, is to freeze, or take a |
4 |
> snapshot if you like, of the current tree, stabilize what you |
5 |
> need to stabilize, test the whole tree ( at least compile wise ) |
6 |
> for a couple of weeks and then replace the existing stable tree. |
7 |
|
8 |
hmm, would it make sense to add a new masking for the testing |
9 |
tree, so users could decide which stability grade vs they wish ? |
10 |
or perhaps use overlays for that ? |
11 |
|
12 |
For example, I'd like to have the critical packages (everything |
13 |
that's needed to bootup and do basic remote maintenance) from |
14 |
the new frozen-stable tree, but other things should stay as |
15 |
they are. |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
cu |
19 |
-- |
20 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
21 |
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ |
22 |
|
23 |
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@×××××.de |
24 |
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 |
25 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
26 |
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme |
27 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |