Lex,

lex at cc.gatech.edu wrote:
> ...

> . Since we are faced with a
> 
>>combinatorial explosion here, hints regarding
>>stable/unstable/bleedingEdge/etc. from the package maintainers would be
>>helpful though...
> 
> 
> I suggest we solve this through the idea of package universes.  You
> simply live in a bleeding edge universe or a stable one.  I don't see
> how you can combine a bleeding edge package and a stable package and get
> something meaningful.  The result is not stable, for sure.
>

> There's no explosion in practice.  The simple "Stable" versus "Unstable"
> goes a long way.

The paragraph in my original post has been:

* But testing is nevertheless important: it would be very good to have
* many automatically runnable tests to classify package combinations as
* stable/unstable/bleedingEdge/etc.. Since we are faced with a
* combinatorial explosion here, hints regarding
* stable/unstable/bleedingEdge/etc. from the package maintainers would be
* helpful though...

So the 'combinatorial explosion' means *testing* of package combinations
here: and there is such a thing *even* in universes separating
stable/unstable/etc. with only one kind of packages. But putting all in
one universe *without* labeling them (as suggested) makes the problem
much more worse. That has been my point here.


Greetings
Stephan

> ...