Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
On Tue June 12 2007 02:25:59 pm Gustavo Franco wrote:
> That's the point, you would be using testing for development and
> cherry picking changes from unstable manually. Remember that in this
> scenario we still have unstable to testing transition so if you don't
> push stuff manually it will get there anyway, probably the second
> step would fine tune the unstable to testing metric but RM team
> already has some ideas on this camp as Luk pointed out.
Hmm, Testing came about as a permanent archive so that developers could
continue to work on new stuff during the long pre-release freeze[1].
For some reason they choose to make Testing permanent and devise an
automatic transfer scheme rather than expand use of the existing
Experimental archive (which is what your scheme is effectively doing).
Why did they make that choice, and what has changed which warrants
choosing differently today?
- Bruce
[1] that Testing can also be used to track how the next release is
shaping up was more of a side-benefit than prime motivation; and it
should not be surprising that most developers run Unstable because
historically Testing only became relevent just prior to a release
Reply to: