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

Re: kFreeBSD future



Hi!

On 30/09/14 21:54, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Steven, do you have a bigger-picture on current things that would be
> good to have fixed?

Probably dozens of small nits that might cause something to not work
right out-of-the box.  I probably overlook such things all the time
because to me they are trivially fixed in configuration, but for a new
user they could be a headache.

I feel like those are most urgent because we only have until freeze to
work on them.  OTOH if we still have RC bugs at the start of freeze, we
still have several months to fix them.  (Release Team obviously doesn't
agree with this opinion, I suppose unblocks would be a hassle for them).

All RC bugs affecting jessie except one, I think, are fixed in 10.1
kernel+userland that just waits for d-i Beta 2.  ftpmaster can remove
kfreebsd-9 only after 10.1 migrates to jessie (to avoid causing upgrade
issues).  Then after *that* I was thinking would be a good time for a
wheezy-security upload.

That one, and nasty RC bug is #740509, a small ABI change in
kfreebsd-i386 networking that broke ifconfig.  I've been mostly working
on that for about a week and almost have it figured out.  Unfortunately
will be too late to make d-i Beta 2.

I suppose during freeze we could still write documentation on how to do
things that aren't obvious (and too late to fix somehow in the package
itself).

And we could do a 'bits' email or publicity-type stuff any time.

> Seems the release team announcments got us some
> manpower for a while with several people asking where to help

Have people also been asking in IRC and such?

I think I should increasingly look for easy bugs and, instead of just
fixing them myself (because I can), I should tag them as 'gift' for
someone else to work on, get some experience and have fun.  We should
maintain a list of these to point people at?

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
steven@pyro.eu.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: