* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050321 00:25]: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to > > e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if > > an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we > > can't release it in any case.)
> Is that statement based on experience of current behaviour, or rather on > expected behaviour? It's based on experience. > (Currently, architectures only get ignored if they're lagging behind > anyway, so then the above statement is obviously true. When > architectures are being ignored for other reasons, the above isn't as > obvious anymore) It's probably true that an arch that is always ignored doesn't get out of sync as bad as an ignored arch now. However, every arch is sometimes a bit out-of-sync on one or another package, and I doubt that it will really work. But well, of course this could be tried out if it seems to be the best solution. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]