Re: security in testing
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Thursday 15 May 2003 08:31 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > In that case, I invite any maintainer with a security fix for their
> > > package in 'testing' to upload it to testing for
> > > testing-proposed-updates. Problem solved. Are you the one who will be
> > > responsible for reviewing the packages?
> >
> > testing, in the absence of a freeze, is a moving target and continuously
> > updated from unstable, without any kind of review. I fail to see why a
> > t-p-o => testing path, or even a separate-testing-updates solution as I've
> > originally proposed, would need a review, but I'm willing to be
> > enlightened.
>
> To prevent the normal progression of packages into testing from unstable, and
> thus the original point of testing, from being lost. If this path is used
> for anything other than security updates, testing becomes completely
> pointless, as I see it.
Why ? is the migration from testing-proposed-update to testing follow
the same rule as the unstable to testing migration, nothing is lost.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: