On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:19:03AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:43:26PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > I do still doubt that testing actually is an improvement compared to the
> > former method of freezing unstable, and even more do I doubt it's worth
> > sacrificing 8 architectures.
>
> If the proposal already gives porters the option to freeze ("snapshot")
> unstable to do their own releases, in what sense is this "sacrificing"
> architectures?
Have you seen one porter who believes that taking an unstable snapshot
and make a release off of that will actually be enough? Those porters
that I've seen participating in this thread actually said it would be
entirely useless. Even more so, Joey Schulze told us that this idea
would not work in terms of supporting it from his part, so it's a
bad idea in general.
Obviously the porters could all do their own releases, but then you're
duplicating work that does not need duplication in a single project; you
could just as well ask us to go to sourceforge.net and release there,
because the net effect would be the same.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature