Testing Backports

[Martin Meredith]

Well, then, you're going to have to speak to mdz about that, because,
with the current infrastructure, there's no way of "testing"

John Dong wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/28/05, *Martin Meredith* <martin at sourceguru.net
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:Ubuntu-backports at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20050728/51f37e72/signature.pgp