On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:54:14AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > I did the "new upstream", so I can tell you that it was only a couple of > lines of code changes, and they were tested well before being put into the > silo repo. > I don't think it needs extensive testing. It seems that this version of silo ended up being used to build the CDs for d-i RC3 (even though the .deb *on* the CDs came from testing), so it's already getting more extensive testing than I think we bargained for. It also seems to be holding up well under it, so I'm going ahead and approving 1.4.9-1 for testing, barring the appearance of any last-minute RC bugs. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer > On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 12:34:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:30:55AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > Can the silo I just uploaded go into testing atleast? It does fix some > > > bugs. In fact, it may fix some of the rc silo bugs, but I need testing > > > with it to make sure (didn't want to claim the bugs were fixed without > > > testing by others first). > > > > It fixes the RC build-dependency bug, so it should probably go in; but given > > that it's a new upstream version, it should get a fair measure of testing > > first -- at least to verify it hasn't caused any major regressions, whether > > or not it fixes the outstanding bugs. > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Steve Langasek > > postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature