Re: "testing" improvements

[jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)]

Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:03:19PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
>
>> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
>> > You said to let testing get out of sync.  And that would either mean
>> > abandoning testing as almost-ready-to-release (then what is its purpose?),
>> > or releasing with packages out of sync.
>> 
>> But if noone test testing (because too far from unstable), do people have to
>> wait for stable to realize testing has problems?
>> Where does the name "testing" come from then?
>> Isn't testing "testing" helpful for making a better stable?
>
> The way I see it, it doesn't matter one bit whether anyone even _looks_ at
> testing until we start to prepare for a release.  Until that time, all of
> the "testing" happens in unstable, and "testing" is misnamed.

You have to define "we start to prepare for a release". Like you said,
testing is meant to be in a releasable stable at any time.


-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org