[tex-live] TeXLive has no stable source tree and resorts to DVD with binaries?

[Kārlis Repsons]

On Wednesday 13 April 2011 23:45:38 Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> 2011/4/13 Kārlis Repsons <karlis.repsons at gmail.com>:
> > For example, someone writes a new package or modifies some script and
> > it's first placed in some 'unstable' or 'testing' category, only after
> > sufficient time/feedback moved to 'stable'... Or is that considered a
> > vain effort?
> 
> The packages that I develop (either alone or in cooperation with
> others) live in some revision control systems. Those who contribute in
> development or want to use the latest version for testing can get it
> separately and install to texmf-local. If the package is tested and
> stable, it is released to CTAN and TL maintainers fetch it from CTAN
> and include in TL.

> Why should the well tested and stable package be
> declared unstable in TL? And for how long?
Sounds like no reason. Admittedly I perceived the actual deveIopment workflow 
wrong (ah, forgot CTAN), but basically the idea is: the package authors and a 
few users might reach a point, where they don't doubt stability question and 
wish to put in CTAN, but the real problem is within interaction of two or more 
packages, which would take more testers to find it... (but the immediate 
inclusion encourages everyone to stay at where things are then after it!)
Perhaps I just make some kind of theory here plus it's true that maintenance 
of all-stable file trees is a real work... On the other hand, struggling with 
more package conflicts or incompatible changes can too take time. It just then 
might go off more quietly than what it takes to provide that inter-package 
stabilization (is what I meant with "all-stable").
(I hope I explained and not too long...)

I read what Norbert stated already, the reason I still post this is to get 
some opinions about that idea in general. Perhaps some Linux distros or Mac 
even have their own (separate!) bugfixed versions of TeX software just for that 
inter-package thing?

PS:
don't worry I'm currently using the downloaded binaries & co and it looks like 
they too can do a decent job; just I want to sort things out -- weather I've 
got a wrong idea or it just takes what can't be afforded here and now...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20110414/31aeb083/attachment-0001.bin>