On 24 June 2011 00:06, Michael Scherer <[email protected]> wrote: > Le jeudi 23 juin 2011 à 17:48 -0400, David W. Hodgins a écrit : >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:52:30 -0400, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On 23 June 2011 07:58, Dexter Morgan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> yes it needs to go to backports_testing before iirc >> >> > Got a link to a thread on -dev ML / irc meeting log / <insert your >> > favourite communication method here>, where this was decided? >> >> This mailing list, thread "Release cycles proposals, and discussion", >> messageid [email protected] >> >> Where Anne posted ... >> >> > exactly what I had in mind. Having backports can allow choice between >> > "the last version of" and "the stable version with which I'm happy >> > with". But indeed we need more quality in backport rpms that is policy >> > and tests. >> >> In order for the qa team to perform the tests, before they go to the >> backports repository, they have to go to to the testing repository >> first. >> >> Something that works in cauldron may not work when moved to backports, >> if a dependency is missed. By using backports_testing, we can catch >> that before it hits the average user. > > I think the question of ahmad was about "backport vs updates". > And I think firefox is suitable for the list of package exceptions that > should be backported rather than using a patch ( see > http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=updates_policy ). > > And so, since I guess everybody assume that ff and chromium can go in > the list, as they are unsupported upstream _and_ too complex to fix with > a patch. > > And to answer to am > -- > Michael Scherer > >
Actually no, I meant the submit to backports privileges vs. only being able to submit to backports_testing. -- Ahmad Samir
