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

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

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:21:17AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> 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?

The security team is under-staffed *now*, AFAICT; and you want to increase
their workload for etch on the assumption that nothing bad will come of it?

Far better for us to take the hit on release predictability, and continue
wrestling 12 architectures in sync for testing.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: