The idea of the unstable stream was to have a stream were we can fix
bugs easily by changing the changesets that are that stream. If we are
not able to do that, we don't need an unstable update stream. Then
we would just need the 3.8a stream.

Please keep in mind that the idea was that the unstable stream is
synced back every week or two. The situation we have now (with >300
updates in unstable) is not normal and really needs to be fixed.

      Marcus


Am 05.10.2004 um 00:21 schrieb Samuel Tardieu:

>>>>>> "Bert" == Bert Freudenberg <bert at impara.de> writes:
>
> Bert> You should not be updating from the unstable stream, then. We
> Bert> *will* modify it. For example, the best way to get a couple of
> Bert> additions in that we missed when grabbing the Squeakland changes
> Bert> is to just insert them in the right place a hundred updates
> Bert> back.
>
> Well, it depends of what you (harvesters) want. I use the unstable
> stream because this way, while I do my development, I can easily test
> the latest enhancements made to the image, review fixes and fix bugs
> when I want to distract myself from "serious" work. Restarting from an
> empty 3.8alpha and reloading the updates and reinstall the latest
> version of the tools I use to fix bugs is likely to be much less
> frequent if it is not in my work environment.
>
> Moreover, after having been developing free software for about 13
> years now, I strongly believe that the best software you can deliver
> is the one you use yourself for your daily work.
>
> Also, if I find a bug for which I can find a workaround easily while
> working in a stable image, I am likely to use this workaround rather
> than fixing the bug if I am in a hurry because it may have already
> been fixed in an unstable update already that is not installed in my
> image.
>
> I understand that this may be easier to remove the update or to fix
> the update stream back in time as of today, but this makes it very
> hard for other people to follow it. I do not know the harvesting
> process so I cannot comment on its effectiveness, but maybe it would
> be a good idea to stop for a few days and concentrate on a way to ease
> the harvester's hard job to allow them to create a new update from a
> changeset in one click or so (doesn't that exist already?).
>
> To make it clear: my request for successive unmodified updates is not
> a rant, this is a plea for better development practices :)
>
>   Sam
> -- 
> Samuel Tardieu -- sam at rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam
>
>