Wth "rolling"? (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy)
Hi
Picking one piece that really leaves me "WTF?" out of this
way-too-long-thread. Happens to be a post by Lucas, but could be anyone
else too.
> 'rolling' is a statement by the project that we consider 'testing'
> (renamed to 'rolling')
Why the heck do we start by renaming testing? This will seriously
disrupt service for anyone for DAYS. There are just too many places
tools are using "testing" hardcoded. Too many users having that in
sources.list. Too many things assuming there is "stable, testing,
unstable". And all of them would suddenly, out of nothing, have broken
systems and need to fix them.
If somehow rules for testing get changed (to be whatever rolling wants
to be), fine. Thats one thing.
But for what reason change the name? That's worse PR than usually
done by politicians, and they generally do the things noone with a brain
ever does. So why?
> Yes, it's mostly "PR bullshit", and I don't expect it to significantly
> change Debian development processes.
Then don't start with a change that WILL interrupt Debian development
for days, if not longer.
> However, communication is necessary if we want to attract new
> users.
Communication can be done now too, no need to change anything (besides
the pr foo) for this.
(From what I was able to follow in this mass attack of mails is, that
the best to do right now would be to regularly "release" testing into a
new suite, whatever it is named (including something of "beta" or
"alpha"). Those releases would come with a full d-i for that
suite, every other month. Or so. Updates to that suite go via testing,
as long as it works, or via a -p-u like thing later. Support for those
suites, from the team who wants to do it, is given "X months or til next
release, whichever is earlier". The exact way how packages move there,
how often its done, etc. need to be laid out in detail, but that scheme
would actually be simple to support from FTPMaster. EVEN if we would go
to have two new suites (one testing-1, one testing-2, to keep it around
a little longer. If thats a good idea, dont know). Main point still
would be "If there is someone doing the work for it.", like the release
team now does for testing. Coordinating a good package list, a d-i that
works, etc. is not a small amount to do.)
--
bye, Joerg
[Talking about Social Contract]:
We will not discriminate noone[...]
[So we discriminate anyone?]
Reply to: