Why does Wesnoth stay in experimental?

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:

> Uploads to unstable are meant to be in a state that makes them fit for
> a release - this has nothing to do with that we just released lenny and
> now can break unstable (and with that testing) for everyone.

Well, if you regard uploading an RC candidate of a game "break
unstable for *everyone*" there is no need for further discussion.
We just have different opinions here and there is no need to
spend further time on this dispute.

> Wrong. unstable has the name for the reason that things like library
> transitions and uninstallability of different things can happen.

Well, IMHO RC candidates need testing - also by users of a distribution.
Filing a dummy RC bug against the release candidate could ensure that it
will not be propagated to testing - that's not a big deal.

> Anything uploaded to unstable still is expected to be in a state that
> would mean that it *could* get included in a stable release.

In theory yes - but didn't we talked about a very specific example
where you mentioned yourself that stable is under way?

> A
> development release of wesnoth will never get included in a stable
> release because it's a moving target upstream, unsupported upstream, and
> I (and I guess I am speaking for the other team members here) am
> unwilling to play upstream for such a version.

As I said it's your choice. I disagree for the reasons I gave above.

> Again, its not only the savegames - and even then, the savegames are a
> core feature of the package; breaking it deliberately falls under quite
> some definition of a RC bug.

And preventing users of unstable does not help upstream to get
enough testers.  There are reasons for both opinions.  You are
entertaining sticking to principles where your deeper insight into
the details should enable you to find a reasonable compromise.

> That question shows clearly that you do want random breakages in
> unstable and low quality.

No.  It shows clearly that I trust upstream to have stabilised
the third RC candidate.  Nothing more.  Please stop trying to
accuse me to things like that.  And BTW, this will be my last
response in this thread.

> I really hope that I misunderstand you there
> and that you do *not* only care for quality close to releases.

Seem like you intentionally try to misunderstand me.

> The exactly same would happen to you after an upload to unstable - and
> that's the central meaning of the release name. For exactly this see
> <http://bugs.debian.org/517265>.

Well,I don't use unstable for a reason - I use testing.  I sometimes
chery pick from unstable and your advise in this bug report is
perfectly right:
   The suggestion to *not* use unstable is meant deadly serious.

> That I upload the development releases to experimental is much more of
> a courtsey, and I'm sorry that you consider it an annoyance.

I was using the packages happily and silently but raised my voice
at RC3.   See the difference?

> If the RC candidate would be bound to be compatible with the upcoming
> 1.6 release I would do you the favour. History has shown that it isn't,
> so I stick with the rather-safe-than-sorry approach.

I admit this is the only point in your arguing which has some logic -
even if I can not really believe that upstream does this kind of
things.

Finally, please just try to finish 1.6 packages and let's stop this
arguing.  Thanks for maintaining Wesnoth

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de