Re: Debian Releases
> We need, *for each release*, to have a list of things that need doing,
> with some indication of whether they're show-stoppers or not.
>
> Someone needs to maintain this list, and *they have to approve* the
> decision to release. If any of the show-stoppers are left, or other
> significant problems, then we should not release. Instead we should
> bump work on the critical items up our priority queue and get them
> fixed.
>
> I think that Brian is a good and competent person and I'd be happy for
> him to be responsible for the important task of managing our critical
> work list and deciding on releases.
Thank you, Ian! <blush>
> Furthermore we need a codefreeze of *at least* a month where critical
> components may only be changed to fix bugs, meaning that at some point
> we need three distributions:
> stable
> codefreeze
> unstable
I was thinking the same thing last night. (The things we geeks think about
when trying to get to sleep! :-)
This should be easy enough to do, though the mirror sites might howl
for it. Three full copies of the distribution is pretty severe.
One solution that comes to mind is to make the next distribution (call
it "bo" for now) with nothing but symlinks back to "rex". As packages
get updated in "unstable"/"bo", those links would be replaced by real
files. Updates made to "codefreeze"/"rex" would still require only
one actual file and one updated symlink.
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give others some insight into YOUR pages! http://www.verisim.com/insite/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: