On 19.05.2012 19:04, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Very quickly following up on a possible nomenclature issue and a
couple
of other things.
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 17:29 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
- We of course aim at tech preview for wheezy only, not a full
release. Our goal is to establish a testing distribution for wheezy
which does not block others ports (i.e. so-called fuckedarch), and
get
a full testing for wheezy+1.
That's not what the phrase "tech preview" was used to mean for
kfreebsd-* at least.
[...]
I'm not sure we've ever released with an architecture which was in
either broken or fucked, but hopefully someone will correct me if I'm
mistaken on that.
Anyone? :-)
Opinions as to whether it makes sense to release an architecture in
either of those states would also be welcome.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/e5cd4db270a3b1679caf32483191a...@mail.adsl.funky-badger.org
