On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:50:36AM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:24:47AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:17:11PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Ondrej Certik writes:
>
> > > > I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I
Steve Langasek writes:
> It's not necessary to freeze unstable when preparing to release
> testing; this is a significant reason why testing exists as a
> separate suite.
That's exactly what I thought; I'm glad to see a member of the release
team reassert it.
> So in fact, unstable is *not* fro
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 07:24:47AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:17:11PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Ondrej Certik writes:
> > > I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I
> > > understand that with the current setup (e.g. unstable, testing, ..)
Ben Finney (06/02/2009):
> I'm unhappy about it too, but I don't understand it. Where can I find
> an explanation for the necessity of freezing ‘unstable’ when preparing
> to release ‘testing’?
For more than verbose explanations, see -devel@ a few weeks ago,
starting at <200812160703.00258.russ..
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 05:17:11PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ondrej Certik writes:
>
> > I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I
> > understand that with the current setup (e.g. unstable, testing, ..),
> > there is probably no other way.
>
> I'm unhappy about it too,
Ondrej Certik writes:
> I am unhappy that unstable gets frozen for such a long time, but I
> understand that with the current setup (e.g. unstable, testing, ..),
> there is probably no other way.
I'm unhappy about it too, but I don't understand it. Where can I find
an explanation for the necessi
6 matches
Mail list logo
