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

Re: DPLs : what do you think about ...

On Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 04:38:36PM -0500, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> And thus spake Ben Collins, on Sun, Dec 13, 1998 at 07:17:58PM -0500:
> > People should be concentrating on getting the frozen dist complete, not
> > making changes to packages for unstable. If we do it this way, it is
> > concievable that it wont be as long till deep freeze as it takes now. When
> > deep freeze comes along, then we fork an unstable. If you don't have
> > anything to do with your packages for frozen, take a break or pitch in
> > with the "Bug Group" or help other maintainers get their packages bug
> > free.
> I would personally prefer the current system of longer freeze periods
> that do not hinder the more productive maintainers - and I don't think
> there's any evidence to suggest that holding off on creating unstable
> will speed up release management in any way besides having these people
> produce less and thus have less potential for bugs at the next release.

So you prefer that our packages get out of date in out frozen dist while
we fiddle around with the next release? It is well known that our releases
have outdated packages, atleast compared to others. Example, cvs 1.10
isn't even in slink while, from my understanding, the 1.9.x that is in
slink is considered beta to the 1.10 release. 1.10 has been available for
quite some time, i think as far back as the hamm freeze.

> > What is there that says you can't release your software without a debian
> > upload? It just means holding off till you can upload to the archive, but
> > you can still work on it and still release it. Debian isn't a personal
> > software releasing method, and non-debian packages shouldn't depend on it
> > as such, you can't expect to force an entire fork for the sake of your
> > release methods can you? 
> > 
> > Sounds kind of harshe i know, but the whole point is that frozen is top
> > priority, and not giving it that priority is a grave mistake. With an
> > immediate unstable fork, that priority is gone.
> I don't believe that to be the case. If you do, perhaps you need to
> change your own development priorities?

You need to check the debian-devel-changes list...whatch how many packages
are getting into unstable while there are still a lot of bugs in frozen.
Yes, there has been huge effort on the part of some maintianers to fix
these bugs, but if all of the maintainers were working to this
end...progress would atleast be 4 fold, I guarantee.

-----    -- - -------- --------- ----  -------  -----  - - ---   --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov>                  Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc.                 bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - -------   ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation

Reply to: