2010/8/12 Mario Figueiredo <mario.figueiredo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On 11-08-2010 18:03, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:41:06 +0100, Mario Figueiredo >> <mario.figueiredo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> This would definitely get me interested in Testing. >>> Right now my Linux knowledge is limited and thus Testing is a no-go >>> zone. If however I could have a guarantee that Testing offers the same >>> package sanity insurance of the other mirrors, I could start >>> participating. >>> >> >> In that case testing wont still be for you. There wont be any guarantee >> for testing and some pacakges might be just broken. The only thing you >> can expect that we wont break testing _by intention_ due to moving >> incomplete rebuilds in. >> >> > Well, that was precisely my point, wasn't it? Testing implies bugged > application builds. > What it should however not imply is broken packages. [testing] implies bugged application builds /and/ broken packages. That's the point of [testing] to identify broken packages before they go to [core]. > >>> It needs to be said that this is also reflection of what one should >>> expect to encounter in the development process in the wild. Apart from >>> the potential for collaboration, the idea that the Arch repos could >>> mimic this development cycle is very appealing to me. >>> >>> __________________________ >>> | | >>> V V >>> Development<-> Staging<-> Testing -> Release >>> >>> Packaging maintenance is taken away from the end user, giving them >>> "safe" (it's still a beta, hence the quotes) access to Testing. >>> Meanwhile developers would separate packaging from Testing, >>> considerably giving them a lot more control over what users can access >>> from Testing. >>> >> >> Staging is not a new repo/layer between the developer and testing. It's >> just meant to be a temporary storage for rebuilds. The current dev. >> cycle wont be affected. So we'll still have: >> dev->extra >> dev->testing->core >> >> > Aren't you contradicting yourself? Unless you don't plan to use staging, > you won't risk anymore having broken rebuilds on testing. > No, but there can still be broken packages in [testing].
