On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:47:39PM -0800, Rob wrote: > Proposal to help Debian release on time. Yet another one. I think we should focus on the woody release. When woody is released then we might work to improve the current Debian release scheme. > Add a 4th version of a package called fallback. This package version should > not have any RC bugs. So now you have stable, fallback, testing and unstable > package versions in the pool. The creation of a 4th package pool might be useful. Maybe we should create a "release" pool for the packages which are in a release. Then the stable pool would be for packages we consider stable. Packages could go into stable when > The advantage of this is that that the release manager can choose the > fallback version if the testing version has RC bugs. Currently he can only > request priority bug fixs. I think in many cases the bug also exists in the fallback version. > The second advantage is that priority bug fixs can be spead out more evenly > over the whole year, not just when a release is due. (see rule 3 below) It's always a priority to fix bugs! Especially the high priority ones. > Some rules: > > Fallback would start off beening a link to the same package version as stable. > > When the version in testing has no RC bugs for say 6 weeks it moves to fallback. Maybe those packages should move automatically in stable? > If the fallback version gets a RC bug, a bug fix should be a priority. A bug fix for a RC bug always has a high priority. It doesn't matter whether the package is in stable, testing, unstable or whatever. (well, for experimental maybe not, but AFAIK that pool isn't used very much) > It > becomes the highest priority if the package is in base or important. I don't see any reason what the change it. It's already the highest priority to fix base and important. If it isn't, we will never release! > Debian QA should monitor these fixs. Debian QA should monitor a lot of things, especially that base and standard is in a good state. Maybe having 2 maintainers for packages in base and standard would also help. We need to get rid of the idea that NMU should be avoided at all cost. Sometimes we just need them. However, you don't want to NMU a lot of packages in base and standard (like glibc and XFree86) because those are just too complex. Having a second maintainer which knows the package very well and knows what to do and not to do might help keeping packages in a good state. Of course the both maitaingers should cooperate closely with each other. Anyway this is for woody+1 and won't help woody. The thing we need to work on is getting woody out ASAP! Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgpX_BrDCcujj.pgp
Description: PGP signature