(thanks for the timeline...and forget about what I wrote on IRC that you should make one....I did that before reading the list) Quoting Otavio Salvador (otavio@debian.org): > Currently installer itself is more or less in a good shape however we > have two bugs that are blockers for this release. They are: > > #557387 - Graphical installer is brokeness (cjwatson and/or lunar) > #556635 - udev: blanks inserted RW media (fixed in GIT already) > > About the graphical installer, I contacted Jeremy (lunar) and asked for > help with it. He can't look at it before began of December so any help > regarting it is welcome. In meanwhile Colin (cjwatson) is going to try > to look at it. I see g-i brokeness as "less release critical" than the udev issue. An I mostly follow Martin's stance on this. I we have an opportunity to release without g-i (and, as Frans pointed, *really* without it), we should release with it and 2.6.30. > Possible route > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Since we have a window until the graphical installer and udev issues are > solved I'm thinking about we move to 2.6.31 in d-i. I see following pros > in doing it: > > - Squeeze looks to target 2.6.33 or 2.6.34 as kernel and 2.6.31 is our > current kernel so we'd be near of the target one in the release; > > - We use this period of time until g-i is working again to stabilize > the kernel and other stuff; > > - We help kernel team to get more test on 2.6.31 and this help us to > reduce distance from kernel team when possible; > > The plan is to start working locally in the transition and if udev > and/or gtk+ is not ready when kernel is done then we start moving to new > kernel otherwise we go with 2.6.30 as is now. Agreed. But let's make it clear that 2.6.31 is *not a blocker* for our alpha release. If things are ready with what we have currently in testing (aka 2.6.30), let's release. > Timeline > ~~~~~~~~ > The timeline I have in mind would be: > > 27 Nov 2009: have udebs of kernel uploaded > 30 Nov 2009: meeting and review current status > 04 Dec 2009: have g-i working again (if possible) > 07 Dec 2009: meeting and review current status If things are ready by Nov 30 (ie udev fixed), we should start the release process and not wait for g-i. We maybe need to send a warning sign here: g-i gets not enough attention and, if people want it to be in the release, we need to take care of it. The most interested people should be those who care about languages we don't support in the text installer. At the minimum, I could try doing as much noise as possible in debian-i18n about the regression we have and the fact that we need someone to dedicate self to take care of g-i.... Having a release *without* g-i is maybe a good way to reach this..:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature