[arch-general] Rename 'unstable' to 'developing'
As we know, many packages saying even firefox or openoffice in unstable repo don't mean "unstable", instead, they are quite stable. The name of repo simply doesn't reflect the fact, so how about a rename? It's harmless and may even bring some good point, at least from a marketing point, it may courage more devs or TUs to follow the upstream developing and put more packages there, in return attract more people who are interested in the package to do more (testing) work, which can eventually make the package better quality. Just my 2 cents.
gan lu wrote:
As we know, many packages saying even firefox or openoffice in unstable repo don't mean "unstable", instead, they are quite stable. The name of repo simply doesn't reflect the fact, so how about a rename? It's harmless and may even bring some good point, at least from a marketing point, it may courage more devs or TUs to follow the upstream developing and put more packages there, in return attract more people who are interested in the package to do more (testing) work, which can eventually make the package better quality. Just my 2 cents.
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2008-April/005870.html I vote for simply dropping that repo.
On Donnerstag, 1. Mai 2008 12:23 Xavier wrote:
I vote for simply dropping that repo.
+1 I think the first time about this and i must say this make the most sense from view. See you, Attila
2008/5/1 gan lu <rhythm.gan@gmail.com>:
As we know, many packages saying even firefox or openoffice in unstable repo don't mean "unstable", instead, they are quite stable. The name of repo simply doesn't reflect the fact, so how about a rename? It's harmless and may even bring some good point, at least from a marketing point, it may courage more devs or TUs to follow the upstream developing and put more packages there, in return attract more people who are interested in the package to do more (testing) work, which can eventually make the package better quality.
I vote for simply giving that repo to the TUs. Just my 2 cents. -- Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Giovanni Scafora <linuxmania@gmail.com> wrote:
I vote for simply giving that repo to the TUs.
Why? It's true that we're all waiting for our own testing repo, but using unstable won't help: the problem is AUR integration: a lot of work still has to be done before community can move to svn, and then support for an overlay repo has to be added from scratch. Using unstable IMHO would just be a hassle, since it would also need to be locked so that we never manage to touch other repos there. Corrado
2008/5/1 bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com>:
Why? It's true that we're all waiting for our own testing repo, but using unstable won't help: the problem is AUR integration: a lot of work still has to be done before community can move to svn, and then support for an overlay repo has to be added from scratch.
The unstable repo is using svn now. Maybe, we could rename it to community? -- Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Giovanni Scafora <linuxmania@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/5/1 bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com>:
Why? It's true that we're all waiting for our own testing repo, but using unstable won't help: the problem is AUR integration: a lot of work still has to be done before community can move to svn, and then support for an overlay repo has to be added from scratch.
The unstable repo is using svn now. Maybe, we could rename it to community?
We have community repo already, hand svn packages to community may work, but I still think it could be better to distinguish such packages from anothers. Unstable repo is useless if only a few people use it. Drop it if we can't make it more useful, that's why I propose for a rename, to try to bring it to the right direction. --
Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:40 PM, gan lu <rhythm.gan@gmail.com> wrote:
We have community repo already, hand svn packages to community may work, but I still think it could be better to distinguish such packages from anothers. Unstable repo is useless if only a few people use it. Drop it if we can't make it more useful, that's why I propose for a rename, to try to bring it to the right direction.
What Giovanni was proposing is using that already set up repo as a new community repo, since devs seem to be ok about dropping unstable, and at the moment community still relies on cvs (see my other mail about it). Corrado
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Giovanni Scafora <linuxmania@gmail.com> wrote:
The unstable repo is using svn now. Maybe, we could rename it to community?
As I said, it's not so simple. AUR needs a lot of work to integrate with it, it has to understand svn commits and update pages accordingly. I think a lot of underlying code needs to be changed, but certainly AUR developers can explain better than me where the problems lie. Corrado
participants (5)
-
Attila
-
bardo
-
gan lu
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Xavier