Re: "testing" improvements
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:41:04PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 04:48:28PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> >> Force packages into testing? You must have missed the point. I said
> >> let packages into testing for architectures where nothing prevent them
> >> to. Why would mipsel failures block x86 packages, for instance?
> > Because testing is meant to be releasable, and releasing with packages
> > out of sync across architectures is insane?
> I didn't say releasing with packages out of sync. Please read my reply to
You said to let testing get out of sync. And that would either mean
abandoning testing as almost-ready-to-release (then what is its purpose?),
or releasing with packages out of sync.