On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:09:33AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote: Excuse this "me too"-style mail but I wanted to make some comments and forgot what I wanted to say ;) I thought Richard will like some agreements... > * Authorize NMUs to fix specific bugs when necessary. (I think the > release manager should have this power.) AOL. > * Have a pre-freeze of one or two weeks, during which new packages > can be held until after the freeze so that they can be installed in > the next "unstable". Conveniently, "new packages" tends to include > incompatible library versions and major reorganizations as well. So we have pre-freeze, freeze and deep-freeze? 8-) > * Don't try to keep track of everything. Find a "sponsor" for each > release goal, who keeps track of progress, makes sure it happens, and > gives advance warning of any problems. That way the release manager > only has to stay in touch with the sponsor. Great idea. > activity. But I would go so far as to turn it around, and not > acknowledge a release goal unless it has a sponsor. One hundred > people who say "It would be a good idea" are not much use unless one > of them is willing to take the lead. It's like maintaining a > package -- I don't want orphaned release goals :) *g* Agreed. > I do not advocate any radical changes to the release process. I like > some of the three-level schemes that have been presented, but I do > not think they are ready for use. (I tried to implement one of them, > so I have some idea of what's involved.) I also like the idea of a "generated" stable tree. So what are the problems you stumbled across when you tried to implement that? Last not least: Thank you for volunteering for this job. > Richard Braakman cu Torsten
Attachment:
pgpOIUyIYwoud.pgp
Description: PGP signature