Re: hurd-i386 qualification for Wheezy

["Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>]

On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a 
> couple
> of other things.
>
> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > - We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
> > release. Our goal is to establish a testing distribution for wheezy
> > which does not block others ports (i.e. so-called fuckedarch), and 
> > get
> > a full testing for wheezy+1.
>
> That's not what the phrase "tech preview" was used to mean for
> kfreebsd-* at least.
[...]
> I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
> either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
> mistaken on that.

Anyone? :-)

Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in 
either of those states would also be welcome.

Regards,

Adam