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

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

also sprach Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> [2005.03.17.1827 +0100]:
> * martin f krafft (madduck@debian.org) [050317 17:10]:
> > Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> > then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
> Because than the security team may need to fix 11 different source
> packages (or how many architectures we actually release) instead
> of 1.

This is a good point, but I wonder whether it should remain
a show-stopper. Wouldn't the logical solution be to stock up the
security team?

That said, the chance of a package going out of sync on more than
a few architectures is minimal, so even though your speculation is
correct, it's likely not going to be in effect ever.

Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system
Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: