Re: A suggestion for the woody freeze
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
> There's a subtle flaw with this proposal. Who will have to remove the
> packages for testing? The only people who can do this are the ftp
> masters. So the success of this proposal depends on the willingness of
> the ftp masters to pick up the slack for maintainers who aren't doing
> their job.
Where's the flaw?
Every freeze needs a release manager the has write access to the ftp
archive.
> If we need to be NMUing more aggressively to get RC bugs fixed, then
> let's arrange to do that. There's no reason why ftp masters need to be
> dragged into this to make it stick.
The ftp masters have nothing to do with NMUs.
And to avoid confusion: "removing a package from frozen" means that this
package will definitely not part of the release.
> The section in the developer's reference on source NMUs has remained
> virtually unchanged since the release of potato. What was considered
> best practice then does not seem to be working all that well this time
> around. If the presence of RC bugs is going to be allowed to delay the
> freeze, then we as a body need to start treating these packages as if
> they're already frozen and NMU appropriately.
>...
As already said in other mails in this thread:
The rules for NMUs aren't the problem.
The problem is that there need to be people doing the NMUs and that there
needs to be motivation for people doing NMUs in the sense that there must
be a visible progress in the way to a newstable release.
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
cu
Adrian
Reply to: