Re: "testing" improvements
Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
But if noone test testing (because too far from unstable), do people have to
wait for stable to realize testing has problems?
Where does the name "testing" come from then?
Isn't testing "testing" helpful for making a better stable?