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

Re: Debian-related advertising on debian-announce

On 4 Feb, 1998 treacy@debian.org wrote:

> Wouldn't the CD manufacturers be happy if we simply guaranteed them that
> we wouldn't create an official CD more frequently than some given rate,
> say every 3 months? We should also give them a few weeks warning of an
> impending new release so they don't start a new run.

I think this is a non-issue with the new release scheme
(unless I misunderstand it).  The mechanics of this were
never clear to me, but using the Rex structure with the new
release numbering should yield a well defined base line
system, e.g. 1.3.0, that stays defined.  This will never
change, but fixes will be made to packages that require it.
These fixes are available in a well known place.

There needs to be an agreement on what constitutes a
revision increase, e.g. 1.3.0 R1 (assuming R0 is
implied to begin with).  I'm guessing this is already
defined somewhere (perhaps a certain number of fixes
increases the revision?)  When this is agreed,
the revision gets incremented accordingly.  The revision
could even be a moving target (where the fixes that
consititute a rev increase don't need to stay static,
but the packages that constitute a point release do).  That's
that.  When something happens that meets point release
criteria, a point release is made.  Now we have a new
baseline, and the rest continues as above with respect to
the new baseline.  

The revision increases are only indicators to people that
they should check out the fixes directory and see if they
need to update any of their packages from the last point
release.  This scheme assumes that all fixes included in the
point release come out of the fix directory and get rolled
into the main hierarchy.  Fixes that didn't get rolled in
(for whatever reason) stay in the fixes directory.  Using
this scheme, fixes are always available.  A point release is
always valid.  

A new "official CD" could be cut everyday without obsoleting
anyone's stock of CDs, provided the fixes are available.
The only thing that really would obsolete a pressed CD would
be a point release, and even then only if the previous point
release's fixes go away.  A CD seller could easily just keep
the fixes to their baseline CD stock available on their FTP
server and their stock would remain a valid version of that
baseline (point release).

I don't know what the mechanics of the current system are,
but I think they're similar to what I've described.  Having
well defined criteria for point releases is the critical
part of this.  CD vendors should be made aware of these
criteria so they understand it when a point release is made.
It should usually be possible to give fair warning of a
point release since the system's integrity isn't in jeapordy
as long as the fixes are available as described above.  I
think its wrong to make _any_ hard lined time commitments
such as "3 months" or whatever, but we may suggest the
expected life of a point release relative to the release
criteria and the current state of affairs.

Basically, I don't think the current system is broken at
all.  I don't know anything about the official CD pressing
thing though.



"Until we extend the circle of our compassion to all living 
things, we will not ourselves find peace" -Albert Schweitzer

Richard G. Roberto

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: