Back to basic (was: Re: *seconded* Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Tue, March 15, 2005 22:50, Stephen Frost said:
> I'm not sure that we've entirely missed the point as much as we like to
> think there's a better solution than dropping all but 4 archs.
Here's where things go wrong in this discussion. I think the original
proposal was (in retrospect) worded too definitive and too detailed. Many
people are falling over the fact that the proposal asserts that only 4
archs remain and most people keep repeating that "we are dropping 8 archs"
like that's the key of the proposal .
It would have been much better if the proposal was more basic and not as
worked out with concrete percentages and archs falling out. Let's reduce
it to its essence.
The proposal actually is that the Debian project needs to put some demands
in place for any architecture to be a part of the release. Now this is not
really the case, so if an architecture keeps lagging behind for some
reason, it delays everything. We need some minimal quality standards for
an arch to be included.
Example minimal quality standards:
- it should have a large part of the packages built
- there should be enough buildds to keep up with security and new uploads
within reasonable time.
- there should be some minimal team to support this architecture
Any arch / porting team that satisfies our demands can be included.
I honestly think that we (almost) all agree that putting these kind of
demands in place is not too much to ask. What exactly the thresholds
should be, that's a point of discussion. Let's first start to see whether
we agree that putting these demands on an arch this is neccessary to
remain our overall quality. we could then, if we do, start working on
drafting up the exact demands and parameters.
Thijs
Reply to: