On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:12:42PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > This seems like a solution in search of a problem. What problem are > > you actually trying to solve? Start by describing it, then we can try > > dreaming up ways to solve it. [Given your vague description of what > > this would accomplish, I have a few guesses about what you might be > > trying to do, and I think there are probably less intrusive and more > > effective approaches]. > Sorry if my English is not as brilliant to explain the problem clearly > to everybody. So I try a simple example: > > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?excuse=postgresql > > If there would be a recent perl for each architecture postgresql > would have entered testing. I guess there was a working perl before > there was trouble with MIPS buildd which wuold have enabled postgresql > to enter testing. So your proposal is merely that we ignore non-FTBFS bugs until all the FTBFS bugs have been fixed? That doesn't sounds like a good idea to me. Certainly it won't speed up the process of fixing all the bugs. I suspect that you have fallen into the trap of seeing testing as an end in itself. It isn't; the objective is stable. Once we're in a fit state for that, testing will sort itself out. It doesn't really matter whether postgresql goes into testing today or in three months, it just has to do so before the next stable release. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature