Re: "testing" improvements
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:26:51PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Since testing is meant to be used by people willing to test our
> future release, I don't see any reason why a given package which
> built successfully on a given arch can't enter testing if its
> dependencies are satisfied on that architecture. Hence, the package
> is getting tested as soon as possible, which makes fixes happen more
> quickly in unstable. Basically, this could be achieved by adding an
> architecture tag to the BTS (this has been asked for quite some time
> now by Marcus Brinkmann). Of course, this wouldn't prevent us from
> fixing bug on every architecture.
> What do you think of this?
unstable is where packages go immediately, to be tested as soon as possible.
testing is where packages go after they have (hopefully) received some
testing, been shown to build maybe-successfully, etc., and are considered
releasable until demonstrated otherwise.