Re: testing-dedicated ML? ( was Re: End of hypocrisy ? )
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:58 AM, <berenger.morel@neutralite.org> wrote:
> > Le 21.07.2014 15:31, Slavko a écrit :
> >> it seems, that there can good idea to provide separate ML for testing
> >> users.
> >
> > I agree, since testing is not for normal users (well... theoretically at
> > least), so we could imagine that different MLs for (beta-)testing and
> > productive usage (questions about "how to do..." and stable related bugs
> > would go there, I guess).
> > Now, I have no idea about the complexity of maintaining a new ML. Maybe
> > there are also problems because some issues can not clearly affect only one
> > of both testing and stable?
>
> There is one
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-testing/
No, there isn't.
There's a reason why the debian-testing ML is listed as a "development"
list, and not "user list": this one is *specific* for the testing of the
current stable to the next stable upgrade path, and also matters with the
next stable debian installer.
It sees heavier traffic during the freeze that prepares the next stable
release. I suppose it can be extended to rolling-upgrade matters (stable to
testing) as well.
However, testing to testing upgrade problems, and issues with breakages in
testing itself are NOT on that ML's charter.
> but a quick look at the its archives shows that it isn't a heavily
> used list and that it's not a list for freaking out about systemd.
Indeed it is not :-)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: