Op ma, 14-03-2005 te 20:54 -0500, schreef Daniel Jacobowitz:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:51:05PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Perhaps, but then why not just use the existing testing setup?
>
> Because, as has been explained several times, it doesn't scale.
What are the exact problems?
My main gripe with the proposal, as it currently stands, is that it
provides a solution for problems that haven't been discussed in detail,
without much space for improvements.
Rather than suggesting a drastic step without much explanation and
assuming the project would agree with that, it might have been a better
idea to just list up the problems that exist with the current setup, and
have people suggest fixes to them. We have all etch's release cycle to
do that, which should be plenty (I sincerely hope we won't suddenly jump
to a < 9 month release cycle)
> This allows the sub-testing to be coordinated separately. Managed
> separately. Run on a separate archive even.
Useless duplication of effort, in my view.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
