Testing Backports

[John Dong]

On 7/28/05, Martin Meredith <martin at sourceguru.net> wrote: 
> 
> As far as aI know, seeing as it's backproting automatically from breezy,
> it shouldnt' cause problems at all... unless of course, the breezy
> packages are b0rked, and then we go and fix them in breezy, and backport
> again

 What do you call the totem-xine incident? b0rked Breezy package?
 In either case, I don't want to expose our users to the problem, then go 
back and "fix it". It's simply unacceptable, and makes Backports seem more 
of a bleeding-edge repository when it's designed to be more practical and 
common than that.

John Dong wrote:
> > So now that we're official and without a staging branch, have we figured
> > out how we'd test backports with a beta-testing group before letting the
> > general public have to deal with them?
> >
> > I've caught many problems on the staging branch before: packages that
> > don't cleanly upgrade, packages that cause conflicts with existing ones,
> > packages that look "fine" but the binaries segfault, etc etc etc, so
> > some sort of testing branch is fairly important.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Ubuntu-backports mailing list
> Ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20050728/610c16b7/attachment-0001.htm