[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Core Consortium

Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> writes:
>> > The problem is not the autobuilder infrastructure per se.  It is that
>> > testing and unstable are largely in sync (!).  This, combinded with the
>> > fact that testing must not have versions newer than unstable (they

Why aren't security uploads for testing done as "testing-security
unstable"? Why leave the bug open in sid when fixing it in testing?

The issue of testing being newer only arises when sarge and sid have
the same version, otherwise you have the t-p-u case with testing being

>> > will then be rejected) means testing-security wouldn't work at the
>> > moment.
>> How is that different from testing-proposed-updates?
> Because they're ussualy for fixing bugs in testing where there is
> an other version in unstable?  Why else would you be using
> testing-proposed-updates?
> Kurt


Reply to: