* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-14 00:46]: > We could use criteria like these: > > - successful installation reports with on any arches the change affects
I'm not sure of the meaning "any" here. If I make a generic change (say, to mdcfg) which affects all arches, but all in the same way, it should be enough to get it tested on one or two arches. Is this correct? Just to clarify. > Some other changes that happen as a consequence of doing things this way: > - The d-i images in the debian-installer package should be built > against the udebs in sarge, not unstable, though we will want > to keep the daily builds built against sarge. Should we keep separate branches for this? Or where do I make a change that will build against sid but not sarge? Also, it's not clear from your mail _when_ this testing propogation happens. Only right before a new beta release is made, or can I ask for a udeb to move to testing at any time? Basically, how I understand this is that I have to argue that my udeb should move to testing, and I have to show that it won't break anything. I think this sounds fair enough. > Starting with the errata to see some things to look at moving to testing: I think it would be helpful in the future to have the summary for one package in one mail, and maybe we can agree on a standard Subject line. > mdcfg, partman-md > - Need to go in together, otherwise no dependency issues (?) mdadm-udeb has to be pushed into testing at the same time. > - New packages, little chance of breaking anything. Install > reports? Yes, tested by various people. There was just someone on IRC today for whom it worked. -- Martin Michlmayr [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
