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

Re: XFree 4.2.0 - again

On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 02:03:08PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:17:44PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 09:07:01AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > 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.
> What about a woody(testing)-proposed-updates with entrance guidelines
> only slightly more lax than potato(stable)-proposed-updates?  Uploads to
> testing could be allowed in with only cursory examination if they 1) fix
> RC bugs, and 2) contain few or no additional changes.  Granted, that
> does involve more work on the release manager's part; but dammit, that
> should be something the RM can delegate if he doesn't have time for it
> himself.  I can't believe that the implementation of testing was
> unilateral on aj's part, or that there's no one else both willing and
> able to help him with such duties.  If there are really developers who
> think testing was a good idea, then /some/ compromise should be possible
> here.

I think this makes sure that testing is (almost) without RC bugs
because bugfixes can (and should) be uploaded to
testing-proposed-updates quickly. As there should be no other changes,
it probably doesn't have a bug other than a maybe unfixed RC bug. As
packages are already tested in unstable and should not go to testing
if they have RC bugs, there hopefully won't be much RC bugs in

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgp7PJmnXG9e7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: