On Thu, Mar 04, 1999 at 10:09:33AM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
Excuse this "me too"-style mail but I wanted to make some comments and forgot
what I wanted to say ;) I thought Richard will like some agreements...
> * Authorize NMUs to fix specific bugs when necessary. (I think the
> release manager should have this power.)
AOL.
> * Have a pre-freeze of one or two weeks, during which new packages
> can be held until after the freeze so that they can be installed in
> the next "unstable". Conveniently, "new packages" tends to include
> incompatible library versions and major reorganizations as well.
So we have pre-freeze, freeze and deep-freeze? 8-)
> * Don't try to keep track of everything. Find a "sponsor" for each
> release goal, who keeps track of progress, makes sure it happens, and
> gives advance warning of any problems. That way the release manager
> only has to stay in touch with the sponsor.
Great idea.
> activity. But I would go so far as to turn it around, and not
> acknowledge a release goal unless it has a sponsor. One hundred
> people who say "It would be a good idea" are not much use unless one
> of them is willing to take the lead. It's like maintaining a
> package -- I don't want orphaned release goals :)
*g* Agreed.
> I do not advocate any radical changes to the release process. I like
> some of the three-level schemes that have been presented, but I do
> not think they are ready for use. (I tried to implement one of them,
> so I have some idea of what's involved.)
I also like the idea of a "generated" stable tree. So what are the problems
you stumbled across when you tried to implement that?
Last not least: Thank you for volunteering for this job.
> Richard Braakman
cu
Torsten
Attachment:
pgpOIUyIYwoud.pgp
Description: PGP signature