Re: "testing" improvements
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 09:44:54PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> writes:
> >> 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.
> > 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.
> You have to define "we start to prepare for a release". Like you said,
> testing is meant to be in a releasable stable at any time.
I said that testing is meant to be "almost" releasable.
This means that some work remains to be done.
Software release cycles commonly work like this:
- new functionality is added, and things break, until functionality goals
- new functionality is frozen, and only bugs are fixed, until quality goals
- a release is made
The point at which the focus changes from introducing new code to fixing
existing code is where release preparation begins.