[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Why not use testing-proposed-updates?

On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 08:25:37PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> > > I really fear library problems and out-of-sync packages with this
> > > attempt.
> > 
> > I don't see that library issues are any worse than uploads to stable.
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean by out-of-sync packages though. You
> > mean out of sync with updates from unstable?
> No.


t-p-u would *have* to have autobuilders, and as the initial proposal
said, packages moving from t-p-u to testing would have to be non-buggy,
satisfied in dependencies, and built on all architectures - just like
packages from unstable.

In a previous message you suggested 'why not just fix up the unstable
package'... as the initial write-up said, this is not always so easy. A
new or beta version in unstable might have all manner of bugs, where the
one in testing has a build error with a one-line patch or something. If
it can be fixed quickly, without needing the unstable version to
stabilise, testing can always be closer to release.

You also mentioned boot-floppies delaying releases - this will never
change, but you can't really use it as an argument against having a more
readily releasable testing.


Reply to: