sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
- To: Eric Womack <eric AT lasvegasdata.com>
- Cc: Ari Steinberg <ari.steinberg AT stanford.edu>, <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Eric Womack said:
> I think I was misunderstood.
>
> When I was refering to testing, I meant that we would be testing the package
> in order to move it from devel to test. After no mishaps in test, it would
> then move to stable.
>
> I believe it is working out for the future that:
>
> devel allows software of any release
> test is beta and above (after having passed through devel)
> stabel is release level (after having passed through both of the above) In
> other words, both our own use and the package author have shown it to be
> stable.
Sensible. I take it that new versions of the same software will
propagate in like manner.
One possible conundrum to be solved. Let's say I run devel for a
day and have it update my current setup. Let's then say that I find
that critical spells (for me) in devel are broken. If I then pull off
the stable grimoire and run update, will it replace the things in devel
with the versions in stable?
-Phil/CERisE
-
[SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Ari Steinberg, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Ari Steinberg, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches, Spencer Ogden, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches, Eric Womack, 07/26/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches, Andrew Stitt, 07/26/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/26/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Ari Steinberg, 07/26/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Dufflebunk, 07/26/2002
-
[SM-Discuss] Sorcery Busted? This is a new one,,,,
Bearcat M. Sandor, 07/27/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery Busted? This is a new one,,,, bluebird, 07/27/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery Busted? This is a new one,,,, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/27/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Sorcery Busted? This is a new one,,,, Tobias Marx, 07/27/2002
-
[SM-Discuss] Sorcery Busted? This is a new one,,,,
Bearcat M. Sandor, 07/27/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Dufflebunk, 07/26/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Ari Steinberg, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] stable/testing branches,
Eric Womack, 07/25/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.