<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">Apologies for personal e-mails
but OM-whatever e-mails aren't working for me right now.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">An issue I forgot in TC-meeting.
This is a big issue as well. So far the Lx 3.02 ISO's have all
been made with main-testing repo enabled. So that sorta means
that users/testers need to enable it to update their systems. In
fact there have been times when updating would not work without
main-testing or manual intervention. This won't work with
non-tech-savvy users. And we got 'em. We should be wanting more
of them shouldn't we?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">I see huge problems with a
Public release needing any testing repo. In fact I'm running in
to things just testing where I'm inclined and stop till we get
this squared away. For one do I test with or without
main-testing enabled and as I mentioned sometimes you can't
update without it.</font></p>
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">1. I need main-testing to be
gone from the RC ISO for final <b>thorough</b> testing. I'm
running in to many instances of "what am I testing packages in
main-updates or main-testing". Surely we're not expected to test
both and if we did imagine the nightmare of lib and dependency
packages. Frankly I'm not tech-savvy enough myself to do that.
And this is exactly why I just stopped testing something and
wrote this e-mail.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Bitstream Vera Sans">2. I damn sure don't want to be
the person that has to answer questions on the forum about "Why
bad packages", "Why packages not signed", after this hits
SourceForge and DistroWatch. That's where I go disappear in the
swamps of Louisiana.</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Ben Bullard
ben79
--------------------
OpenMandriva-QA Team
</pre>
</body>
</html>