[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Beta1 missing decisions and possible timeline

On Sunday 03 February 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Also note that I have _never_ intended the massbuild script to be used
> > for mass uploads when switching to a new kernel minor version [1]. I
> > still feel that porters should be responsible for checking their
> > configurations and included modules when switching from one upstream
> > kernel release to the next, and that goes double when we are skipping a
> > version.
> > If you want to change that policy, that's fine. But in that case that
> > policy change should first be discussed and agreed with the porters.
> Right. I wasn't going to change architecture specific packages but
> going to update kernel-wedge recipes only.


> It would be nice if people say if they prefer to me to do a first look
> on the modules and then porters review it again or prefer to do it
> themselfs.

The procedure in the past (as I saw it at least) was:
- Joey would check for changes in x86, thereby also catching most/all
  general changes and make changes necessary for that. After making sure
  x86 built, kernel-wedge would just be uploaded (and x86 udebs too).
- Then he or I would request porters to do their own arches. In some
  cases that would require extra changes in kernel-wedge, which would
  either be done by the porter himself, or with help from (mostly) Joey.
- Additional kernel-wedge uploads would be done as needed.

Note that for some arches there has not been a great involvement from 
porters and I've done the last updates for sparc, hppa and s390 myself. 
Which was possible as those are relatively stable arches, sometimes with 
some help on IRC from porters.

> > This is completely impossible, especially for packages that also
> > produce regular debs. You are forgetting time needed to build, test and
> > age new uploads. Do you really expect packages to be built for all
> > arches within one day?
> After mips problem was fix, this happened but I agree I could give a
> bigger slot of time to be able to deal with problems and
> exceptions. Will update it.

AFAICT it's not really "fixed". Both architectures still run on only one 
buildd and that can barely keep up. Both still have a huge backlog of 500+ 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: