On 05/10/10 09:02, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 20:14 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:01:03 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
Just a question on this topic - does the new [staging] mean that
[testing] should always be complete (ie. not having any
unupdated-for-lib-bump packa
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 20:14 +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:01:03 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee
> wrote:
> > Just a question on this topic - does the new [staging] mean that
> > [testing] should always be complete (ie. not having any
> > unupdated-for-lib-bump packages)?
>
> Yes, that wa
On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:01:03 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee
wrote:
> Just a question on this topic - does the new [staging] mean that
> [testing] should always be complete (ie. not having any
> unupdated-for-lib-bump packages)?
Yes, that was the whole idea; to not break or freeze testing
intentionally.
--
Pi
Just a question on this topic - does the new [staging] mean that
[testing] should always be complete (ie. not having any
unupdated-for-lib-bump packages)?
4 matches
Mail list logo