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

Re: Relaxing testing requirements (was: summarising answers to Vancouver critique)

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:00 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
> > This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
> > x86, x86-64 & ppc.  Who cares about lame old and/or arches like 
> > m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"
> Well, there seem to be no more than two ways to get rid of this
> problem: drop some architectures, or make people realise and embrace
> what Debian is all about. I am not in favour of the first, and the
> second seems utopic. So we're stuck.


> > 1. even more disparity between the popular arches and the tiny
> > ones.
> Supply and demand...


> > 2. difficulty with bugs.  How do you close a bug, if it doesn't
> > work on some arches?  The open bug count would go even higher.
> You don't close it, period. Or we introduce arch-dependent bugs
> and/or fixed-in-i386 etc tags...


Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

I like my women like I like my coffee - purchased at above-market
rates from eco-friendly organic farming cooperatives in Latin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: