Dne 14.10.2009 08:58, Kevin Kofler napsal(a): > "Never" is definitely the wrong answer: updates-testing is not for stuff > which is too unstable to go stable, ever. Any update sitting in testing for > more than (at most) 2 or 3 weeks (usually 1 week is enough, but risky stuff > should get approximately 2 weeks of testing and regression fixing; at least > those are the timings our experience in KDE SIG showed optimal) is either > broken, in which case it should be unpushed (and the maintainer should be > more careful next time), or not, in which case it should be promoted to > stable. > > We really need some stricter enforcement against stuff sitting in testing > forever. This is actually your personal opinion AFAIK, right? I tend to disagree with this -- one example which seems to me legitimate is when I create a new package (I remember I came to this conclusion with both PSPP and nimbus-theme) then I sometimes push it into Fedora-[n-1] just for updates-testing, because I really don't have enough computers to do real testing on older distros. By that, people who really want it, can take it and they are implicitly warned that this is not meant to be stable (generally speaking, I guess, people who follow updates-testing has to survive some amount of breakage), but it is not thrown on unsuspecting users of stable. Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mcepl<at>ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC The ratio of literacy to illiteracy is a constant, but nowadays the illiterates can read. -- Alberto Moravia -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
