Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

> Having said this, this all doesn't exclude the possibility for a
> non-release arch to have some "testing" which can be (mostly) in sync with
> the release architectures testing - just that if it breaks, the release
> team is not forced anymore to hold the strings together.  For example,
> the amd64-people are doing something like that right now.

OK, so you are explicitly backing down from the Vancouver paper's ban
against arch-specific "testing" distributions for minor
architectures. Do you speak for the entire Vancouver authorship here?

Alas, I infer that this means that the ban against arch-specific
"stable" distributions for minor architectures (even if security
updates can be provided in some way or another) still stands.
Thus the minor architectures will still effectively be forced out
in the dark. Can you provide any rationale for this decision?

-- 
Henning Makholm                                 "Slip den panserraket og læg
                                          dig på jorden med ansigtet nedad!"