On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dr@jones.dk" target="_blank">dr@jones.dk</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Software known not to be release<br>
quality should instead be packaged for "experimental" branch.<br>
<br>
...which means we (at the source level at least) would need to support<br>
multiple branches, which I do not feel ready to do yet.</blockquote><div><br>Couldn't we simply clone the current "stable" tree and import later releases into that, no extra software changes needed?<br> <br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I still feel that we should not currently package unstable upstream<br>
releases. Feel free to keep throwing arguments for the opposite at me<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Ubuntu and Debian are the two most popular (GNU/)Linux distributions*. Many people who want to contribute to Sugar will be using them, and some testers will not have the technical knowledge to compile the latest releases from source and set it up for their platform. Also, by importing new versions early into experimental, we're able to get good feedback about whether any changes in the new versions will change the way we have to package them. <br>
<br><br>* for the sake of argument, YMMV, IANAL, SRMA<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Luke Faraone<br><a href="http://luke.faraone.cc" target="_blank">http://luke.faraone.cc</a><br>