On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:18:44AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:36:33AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > There is no transfer needed at all, IOW the capability to do releases > > from ports.debian.org exists (and is a very good thing, as Colin > > Watson points out in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). > > > Still, the Release Managers should comment on their willingness to > > make a certain scc arch a release architecture at an advanced stage in > > the preparation of a release. In my view, this is one of the few > > scenarios that I can think of them exercising their veto power: "Yes, > > you meet all the requirements, but as we're 2 months away from > > releasing we veto its inclusion _right now_. We put it first on our > > list of goals for the next release." > > If a port meets all of the requirements for being a release candidate > architecture, and promoting it to release candidate status doesn't introduce > too many arch-specific RC bugs that were previously being ignored, then I > have no problem with promoting such an architecture to release-candidate > status late in the cycle. It would almost certainly have to be done > pre-freeze, for sanity's sake, but that's about it, AFAICT.
Right. I wouldn't like to suddenly make an architecture a release candidate when it hadn't been in the archive at all due to lack of testing, but if it had been on ports.d.o for a while then adding it shortly pre-freeze ought to be fine. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
