Better testing of tagged tars

[Albert Astals Cid]

El Dimecres, 13 de febrer de 2013, a les 01:21:07, Andreas K. Huettel va 
escriure:
> Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013, 22:05:00 schrieb 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).
> 
> [shameless plug] Use Gentoo, it's trivial here since the install process is
> basically the same whether git (any branch) or tarball. Our packager team
> mostly runs live builds, and adapts the packaging instructions there first,
> which is then copied to the release version. [/shameless plug]

I can't, as Canonical employee I am kind of obliged to use the company's 
distro :D

Thanks for the offer though!

Cheers,
  Albert