Re: "testing" improvements
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:03:19PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > 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?
The way I see it, it doesn't matter one bit whether anyone even _looks_ at
testing until we start to prepare for a release. Until that time, all of
the "testing" happens in unstable, and "testing" is misnamed.