Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:07:01AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:48:29AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > A testing + testing-updates system would give the worst of testing and
> > unstable: possibly broken packages that lag behind unstable.
> All software is possibly broken; whether we call it stable or testing or
> unstable doesn't matter, except to adjust the odds a little bit.
But those odds are exactly what matter. We want to minimize the chance of
broken software being released. Providing a backdoor into the release
without the sanity-checking of unstable seems like more work for the release
manager and more potential for bad bugs in the release.
> If we can't trust maintainers to use enough care when uploading to
> woody-proposed-updates that the odds still come out in our favor, then
> you're right that testing is a bad idea. I don't think it's a foregone
> conclusion that maintainers can't be trusted to use woody-proposed-updates
> properly. I suppose we'll never know for sure if no one ever implements
> it, though.
Maintainers are a motley group. Some could be trusted to make minimal
changes, and test them thoroughly, before making an upload to
testing-proposed-updates, and others could not. All of the updates would
certainly need to be reviewed by hand if they were allowed.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org