On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:42:26AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote: > On Thursday 15 May 2003 08:31 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > Hi, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > In that case, I invite any maintainer with a security fix for their > > > package in 'testing' to upload it to testing for > > > testing-proposed-updates. Problem solved. Are you the one who will be > > > responsible for reviewing the packages? > > > > testing, in the absence of a freeze, is a moving target and continuously > > updated from unstable, without any kind of review. I fail to see why a > > t-p-o => testing path, or even a separate-testing-updates solution as I've > > originally proposed, would need a review, but I'm willing to be > > enlightened. > > To prevent the normal progression of packages into testing from unstable, and > thus the original point of testing, from being lost. If this path is used > for anything other than security updates, testing becomes completely > pointless, as I see it.
Why ? is the migration from testing-proposed-update to testing follow the same rule as the unstable to testing migration, nothing is lost. Friendly, Sven Luther
