<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Ville M. Vainio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vivainio@gmail.com">vivainio@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Extras would only be broken for the apps that use the -experimental<br>
libs, if there is a fumbled release. So, it's a "life they have<br></blockquote><div><br>What I was trying to say is that there is a good chance every release will be fumbled with the current process :) as it is really not meant for heavily interdependent multipackage projects (as seen from some Python binding growing pains).<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
chosen". I'd expect the releases in -experimental to be rather<br>
mechanical merges instead of proper quality assured releases. With<br></blockquote><div><br>Yeah, but that still leaves the question of extras-testing open. Changing underlying versions of Qt in the middle of testing can break things (we really don't want t-downs on unsuspecting apps because a certain Qt build is broken), and chances are that there is sufficient overlap that there is not a moment when no package in testing is affected. <br>
<br>Niels, any comments on the whole thing ? As I understand it, this is quite different form what/how it is happening now, but have no insight how easy/difficult it would be to implement.<br></div></div>