Anton Zinoviev wrote: > The upload to unstable is risky - it means that it will be difficult to > make updates in rc2 if some need arises. Its not only the lack of > autobuilders for t-p-u. T-p-u doesn't have its own distribution and > daily built images and this means that the future changes in sarge will > be untested. Of course we could set up daily built images for t-p-u. It would probaly be tricky. However, I expect that if we go with t-p-u, things will not be accepted from there to sarge until we know they've been tested. There are plenty of ways to test individual udebs without daily built images, though not widely. This is why I think that if we use t-p-u, we need to have a very limited set of acceptable changes, that are easy to manually test. > I think that in general it will be usefull to develop the infrastructure > of experimental. I agree, but the question to me is whether experimental is there yet. It seems to be autobuilt for alpha, hppa, powerpc, and sparc, BTW. Would all the other arches be happy with not having a development version of the installer available for an indeterminite period until all those autobuilders are set up? I also worry that users may find three branches of the installer too complicated to comprehend. > Any chances for updates in the area of i18n? More than a month ago some > languages reached a level where they could be released. Too bad for the > work of the translators if their work is outcast. Some updates in the > existing translations is probably also desired. Adding a language increases memory requirements and can break the installer. We've seen problems in translations break the installer too many times too. Either rc2 is ready to be used for a debian release or not; I happen to think it is. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature