On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > We're postponing it for few reasons: > - We still have the translation issue that you've found, Jeremy > proposed a fix and Colin has raised few comments on it. It should > be sorted out soon. (Jeremy looks busy so I asked Colin to take a > look at it); As I've already mentioned on IRC, fixing cdebconf for #502240 is completely and utterly useless if #502244 is not fixed at the same time. > - This change involves minor changes to d-i and a package that will > be only used by us now; I'd prefer to keep it to be decided by > Martin who has the needed knoledge to know if it should be in or > not; No, it involves a lot of changes in various packages that need to be coordinated and (IIUC) a NEW package. > > As I said last week it would take at least a week to get the > > cairo/cdebconf uploads sorted out, and it _did_ take more than a > > week. > > It was better to wait it then have another RC just for it. Yes, and next week it will be better to wait for something else and then for something else again... > Sure and I do agree that we should run to release an RC release as > soon as possible but there were things to be sorted out that we knew > were need before a final release so it couldn't be called a RC in this > case. > > With the cdebconf translation issue solved, it'll be truely called > RC. If no new issues are discovered then we're done. Nonsense. We could have released just fine with what we had in testing last week. Nothing you have now been waiting for was so critical that the release needed to be postponed for it. The only reason we keep postponing is that you seem to want to avoid an RC2 release at all costs. And I and tbm have been telling you repeatedly that that just is not possible. > > We *NEED* the extra testing that an RC release gives us. And, as I > > said last week, there will definitely be new reasons to either > > postpone RC1 or do an RC2 tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, then next > > week. > > Until cdebconf is built to hppa, no RC can be done. Again nonsense. The packages currently in testing are consistent and suitable for a D-I release. An RC release does not have to be totally 100% free of issues. It also does not have to be the absolutely final release. What we DO need is more testing of something that is at least close to the final version, and we're currently just not getting that! The continued postponing of RC1 is hurting D-I and Debian in general!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.