Re: m68k release future
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Okay, so the idea is:
> (a) move m68k from etch to testing-m68k
> (b) automatically promote m68k packages from unstable to testing-m68k
> when the same version gets promoted into etch.
Which, since no special britney run is done, makes it absolutely and
exactly what we have now as etch. What would be the benefit?
> (c) when, or after etch has released, make a snapshot of testing-m68k
> called etch-m68k if possible. possibly simply include that in etch
> proper if the RMs deem it to meet the release criteria.
So we keep on going like now and if m68k can catch up in time to meet
that ilusionary 98% mark we get the official logo.
> (d) over time, improve the promotion rules for testing-m68k to be
> a proper m68k-only britney run with appropriate criteria for
> m68k (for example, counting email@example.com:m68k-rc
> usertagged bugs as release critical, or :m68k-non-rc as not being
> RC in spite of a serious severity)
Post etch so quite irelevant for now.
> Yes? No?
What are you trying to do? Rename the port in DAK without any change
being done? How is that going to help anyone I wonder.
PS: Could someone please ask AJ if he has me blacklisted or has just
nothing to repsond to my mails?