On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Dexter Ang wrote:
So I guess developers were "pressured" to release on a deadline, hoping to fix most bugs through updates. As much as I'd personally love to help test and test until all bugs are stamped out, you can't avoid the fact that a lot of other people simply won't test until a "final" release is out.
I'm not sure how typical I am, but I haven't run any test releases because it has been said that one cannot upgrade from a test release to a new FC release.
for good reason -- since a test release is attempting to emulate, as closely as possible, the upcoming official release, to "upgrade" from a test release to a new FC release is, in essence, upgrading from a version to something representing that same version. logically, it really doesn't make a lot of sense -- i suspect the logistics involved would be just
nightmarish.
rday
Why would this be so hard? Using up2date and package names should make updating easy. Testing packages could be named with a 't' or use the 'rc' in the package name. When the final release is out, drop the 'rc' or 't' so up2date knows that these need to be updated. Heck, the package xxx.1.0-0t should be updated when xxx.1.0-1 is released, correct?
My problem for not using "testing" packages is I have to have my machines working at all times. I also require the applications to be working for work. At home my wife will kill me if I cannot explain the reason for updating from 1.1 to 1.1.1. But that is some of the fun of being married to someone that won't allow the other major OS into our house or M$ Windows.
-- Robin Laing
