Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:51:06PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Rather, it seems much more likely that we would want to push such packages >> > *out* of unstable. >> >> Really? So now, unstable should be maintained in a releasable state >> *too*? > > Not necessarily; but as packages in testing can only arrive there after > moving through unstable, unstable will need to be rather sane, too.
Explain why this is? How does a package which is not yet releasable, in unstable, cause a problem which requires pushing the package out of unstable? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
