Better testing of tagged tars

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Wednesday 13 February 2013 01:00:13 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El Dimarts, 12 de febrer de 2013, a les 22:05:00, Martin Gräßlin va 
escriure:
> > 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.
> 
> That is *your* thinking, i.e. you don't test them, but i think it is a bit
> off a stretch to present that as the reality. Although i agree more users
> of the stable branch would help.
do you know any developer running branch instead of master? I don't
--
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/20130213/9863c5d2/attachment.sig>