reflecting on first UDS session on "rolling releases"

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14:05 PM Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Mar 06, 2013, at 02:31 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
> >A rolling release that isn't actually *always releasable* isn't a
> >rolling release.
> 
> In a different forum, some folks were advocating for never actually doing
> what we'd traditionally call "a release" ever (of an upstream package). 
> There'd be no such thing as an artificially version numbered tarball-like
> thing.  You'd just point to whatever git branch and revision and/or tag you
> cared about, and that would be it.
> 
> Try to imagine a world (or a distro) where everything just rolls along and
> is always "releasable" because it always passes whatever automated tests
> and gatekeepers are in place.  Crazy, huh?

What percentage of code in the default install is covered by automated tests?

For a relatively small project, such approaches are conceivable.  For 
something the size of an installed Ubuntu (pick your favorite flavor) system, I 
think we're a long ways away from being sufficiently instrumented with tests.

Scott K