Re: 1.3.0 tarballs up for testing/signing

David Anderson <david.anderson@calixo.net> writes:
> Committers, I think I can safely say (famous last words) that if your tests
> passed on this tarball, reordering stuff shouldn't suddenly start
> breaking tests
> - If my new tarball configures and builds, I think we can call it as
> "works".

No :-).

How do we know something didn't go wrong in the rolling of this new
tarball? Signing the new tarball should require exactly the same
level of testing the previous one did.

That level varies by signer, which is fine. All I'm saying is, if you
signed the previous tarball, *don't* just configure/build this one and
then sign it on the assumption that it would behave exactly the same
way the other tarball did. Instead, do the exact same testing you did
before. This is a release, not a floor model.

Thanks,
-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org