Better testing of tagged tars

[Myriam Schweingruber]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org> wrote:
> 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

And why don't you use the Neon builds?

Regards, Myriam
-- 
Proud member of the Amarok and KDE Community
Protect your freedom and join the Fellowship of FSFE:
http://www.fsfe.org
Please don't send me proprietary file formats,
use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300)