On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:00:14AM -0800, Joe Rhett wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 03:23:48AM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > > Well, in my experience, testing is most useful immediately following a > > new stable release, and least useful immediately preceding a new stable > > release. If you were to have started using Sarge right after Woody came > > out, I think you would have been rather happy. But now that everyone's > > trying to get Sarge ready to ship out, there's not many current things > > going in. > > Isn't the point of testing that it should contain what will become stable? > If testing is what is supposed to be the next release, then it seems > pointless to even bother. "Testing" still has Mozilla 1.0. That's what, > 2 years old?
We're working on it, but the mozilla package is buggy, which makes it difficult to make the testing management scripts happy with it. > Unless I misunderstand the structure, shouldn't "testing" have lots of > stuff in it just prior to a new release? There's almost zero updates in > testing .. That's not true. KDE 3 went in just a few days ago (albeit somewhat broken for now), for example. > > > In a perfect world, people would hammer things and then roll them into > > > testing once they had been in unstable long enough without bug reports. > > > This would allow us to keep high-uptime systems running the same kernels > > > and such as our test/burn/destroy/rebuild laptops ;-) > > > > Well, that's basically exactly how it works. There's quite a few extra > > details but that's the "meat and potatoes" of it so to speak. :) > > Then why is there really zero updates in testing? That's just rubbish, sorry. (I help manage testing; I watch what it's doing almost every day.) Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]