Since I contributed to taking the thread off on a particular tangent I feel I should try to bring it back to its original topic, which is an important one.
I would like to hear some discussion about whether or not the quality of Debian is high enough; and if it is not high enough, what can be done to improve it? Lars's headings were: A) Prevent bugs from happening in the first place B) Find and report bugs C) Fix bugs that have been reported D) Prevent bugs from entering the archive Automated testing of program functionality Let's take quality assurance seriously Under most of these topics Lars discussed automated testing. Are there objections to Lars's concrete proposals (e.g., standardization on a way to invoke package specific tests)? Are there other ideas? Should Debian do more auditing, for example? For C, Lars discussed different degrees of shift from solitary toward collective maintainership. In the sequel opinions were emphatically expressed that such a shift is not necessarily a good thing. The question remains whether better quality can be realized by changing the organization in some way. Perhaps not. Then what other things can be done to help individual maintainers fix more bugs and fix them better? -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]