[cut-team] For discussion: security support strategy for the wheezy kernel

[Ben Hutchings]

On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 14:59 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:32:08 +0000 Ben Hutchings wrote:
[...]
> > > Again, if the user is interested in such new developments, they will
> > > need to be willing to learn how to run an unstable system.
> > 
> > I thought that users interested in new stuff were supposed to run CUT.
> 
> Most packages will in fact be new, just the kernel and reverse
> dependencies will be held back.  Hence CUT users will get 99% new
> stuff (with respect to stable), and a tiny bit held back simply for
> stability. Like I've said a couple times now, its a balancing act.
> 
> All I'm asking for is a few month long experiment.  And if the
> experiment shows signs of flaws/weaknesses, then the blocker can
> certainly be lifted.

If an experiment is to have any validity, the hypothesis and the
criteria for assessing the outcome must be decided in advance.  If you
can do that, perhaps you will persuade some people that this is worth
doing.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/cut-team/attachments/20110219/718c6302/attachment.pgp>