Andreas Barth wrote:
That would be understandable with the intention to release all arches at the same time. In this case the release should be at a different time *if* that arch is in a releasable state. Otherwise, it is not released.* Mike Fedyk (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050316 20:55]:Andreas Barth wrote:If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for testing migration at all, or even kicking it out of testing at all. Not waiting for such an arch has happened and might happen again.I think it makes sense to shorten the list of arches we wait upon for testing migration, but I fail to see the usefulness of removing an arch from testing.If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we can't release it in any case.)
The point is that propagating to testing is very useful, and it still leaves the status of that arch to the porters. With testing there for SCC arches, it everyone will just point to the porters for that arch if there is a propagation problem.