Better testing of tagged tars

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Tuesday 12 February 2013 15:28:35 Anke Boersma wrote:
> This whole thread was about stable tars, not RC or Beta. 
Sorry at least to me that was not obvious. (thread started on 31. of January, 
doesn't mention minor releases, so I assumed it meant the upcoming release of 
4.10) - all I wrote so far was explicitly for the case of a 4.x.0 release.
> What was found
> and reported often, is regressions from say, 4.x.2 to 4.x.3.
> Reported not in bug reports, but more a discussion on IRC, see if anyone
> was aware, sometimes ml, again, just checking if it was a known/accepted
> regression.
status quo is that currently the branches are basically untested. Here 
personally I would love to get more testing as I never like pushing to branch 
(let's push to master, if nobody screams in two weeks, let's backport).

For this situation I would suggest to coordinate with the quality team (e.g. 
Myriam).

--
Martin Gräßlin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/attachments/20130212/cab96b99/attachment.sig>