* Adeodato Sim?? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060717 15:11]: > But also, I'm really very curious (and would welcome insight from any > Ubuntu people reading this) how the above mentioned concerns for > "ensuring a minimum amount of testing" are addressed in Ubuntu.
Actually that "minimum amount of testing" is one of my biggest concerns with ubuntu. Of course I'm biased because I do not care about Ubuntu and only get in touch with it, as people come to me as the "local person you can ask when something does not work with your Debian system" also with their Ubuntu problems, so I only see the worst cases. Take a look at https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/xdm/+bug/2461 for example. From my POV someone took a new version and uploaded it but most likely never tested it, because it simply cannot work without the missing part, it does not start, does not run, does nothing. And such a package even entered a release. (I've never looked at a launchpad before so I may misparse it, the person coming to me with the problem at least claimed it was a released version he used) That's no big problem when you have a majority only target and people can always switch back to Debian once they realize that they - like anyone else - are a minority. But once the game is no longer "a small group of people cope with a large volume of stuff and make sure the things journalists look at work properly" but "every package has a maintainer looking after it" there should be proper testing procedures. And when there are no proper testing procedures, at least the procedures should be choosen to not discourage testing. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
