| 1 |
On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 21:31 +0200, Guy Martin wrote: |
| 2 |
> I've been running it 1 week with ~5Gb of dl on two box before marking it |
| 3 |
> stable and it still never crashed but I had some minor problems with the |
| 4 |
> current x86 stable one. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> So, I did *extensive* QA on this packages as I do for every other package. |
| 7 |
> When I say extensive, that means I do everything wich I have the time and |
| 8 |
> the ressources for. I don't have thousands of users behind me to test stuff. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Also, I marked this directly stable because I don't have time and manpower |
| 11 |
> to first mark it ~hppa and then hppa. For thoses non-critical packages, |
| 12 |
> that's the way I proceed. Give me 10 more devs, 50000 users some fast box |
| 13 |
> and I'll apply to policy regarding the testing stuff for all packages. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
So you do agree that arch maintainers do not have the same time spend to |
| 16 |
attend to a certain package and you weren't aware of the fact that the |
| 17 |
>2.5.16 version was not marked stable for a reason ? Both really are |
| 18 |
statements to my plea. For you the frontline testing by another arch |
| 19 |
with userbase should keep you out of the wind for most bugs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Another interesting point you raise here is that usually the |
| 22 |
'maintainers arch' (mostly x86 atm) does have the backing of a large |
| 23 |
userbase to test, which will also improve QA. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
- foser |
Archives