Re: Freeze exception for dpkg 1.14.18
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:21:49AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > Here's what I would like to suggest as acceptable for lenny (and thus
> > > 1.14.19):
> >
> > Freeze guidelines are not really up to discussion and I don't like that
> > maintainers of key packages send the signal that they don't care about
> > them...
>
> I'm sorry, I do care about the goal of the freeze: "release a top quality
> distribution in the planned timeframe".
>
> But I really dislike "dogmatic" answer like your "I want zero changes
> because that's the way it is". If you don't want to consider the
> proposition based on its merit concerning the risks for the release in
> terms of delay and quality, I'll seriously consider bringing this issue up
> to the tech-ctte (and no, it's not because I want to annoy anyone, it's
> just because decisions must be made on technical merits and nothing else,
> and because I really care about the few changes that I mentioned).
And experience has shown numerous times that so called controlled and
risk-less changes disrupted the release timeline. I'm no RM, but I don't
want Lenny to be delayed by maintainers wanting their pet package to be
updated at any price.
> You should also consider that while dpkg is a key piece of our
> infrastructure, it's also maintained by very active people in the project
> itself and that we know what we are doing. In some ways, it seems unfair
> to have similar freeze criteria for external software just packaged by
> Debian and software developed by Debian where we have absolute control
> over it (and where we know what we're doing with it).
If you know so much what you are doing, and are so active, why did you wait
right before base freeze to upload disruptive changes to the very base of
our infrastructure ?
Mike
Reply to: