Re: Debian doesn't have to be slower than time.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 02:53:54PM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:36:07 +0100
> "Peter Makholm" <peter@makholm.net> wrote:
>
> > "Joel Baker" <lucifer@lightbearer.com> writes:
> >
> > > * Why does Debian take so long to release?
> >
> > Because people would rather discuss this subject than fix release
> > critical bugs?
> >
> >
>
> I dont agree with Joel's answers but i think its wrong and
> counterproductive to discourage people from trying to improve debians
> release _process_
Fair enough; I hardly claim to have the One True Solution (tm).
> Improving our release _process_ is a worthy goal in itself. It doesnt
> help with the current release but the issues being addressed arent just
> concerned with woody.
This is the point, yes. I don't think we *can* do much to help Woody,
except work hard on what's in front of us. That's well and good, and if I
had a few more spare hours in the day, I'd try to do more on it (as it is,
most of my Debian time is taken up by fixing non-portability issues so that
things run on some of the new ports). I'm certainly not trying to second-
guess the current release manager, or even imply that he's doing a poor
job. I'm saying that I see problems with the tools he's been given to do
that job - and one set of solutions.
> _IF_ (big if) a better release process could be devised, then it would
> be stupid not to consider it.
You said, above, that you don't agree with my answers; would you be willing
to offer alternatives for discussion? Most of mine were taken from having
worked in an environment where the release process and the development
process were well integrated, and based on the assumption that the ability
to respond to change is absolutely crucial (it's not quite XP, but it's
relatively close, for those familiar with such things).
> Its like there are all these taboo subjects that we arent allowed to
> talk about....
I'd make some comments about my penchant for ignoring taboos, but I don't
think I could do so without disrespect to someone's beliefs, which would
send this careening off into a flamewar. So let's just settle for the old
maxim... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But you'd darn well better work
on it when it's broke."
I've said why I believe it's broken - and where we are failing in our own,
self-assigned contract with ourselves and our users. Interestingly, nobody
has, to date, disputed that point directly.
The other interesting thing is the number of folks (3) who have emailed me
in private, saying that they agreed - but didn't want to say so publically
for dislike of what they expected to happen, if they did so.
(One errata, for the record: Ben Collins stated that there have not been
"seven" bug squash parties, including the current one, but three. I wish to
publically apologize for having repeated a statement that someone else made
in this thread, without verifying it. I should have. But I stand by my view
that 1 bug squashing party, at least for what we use them for now, is 1 too
many. The need should never be arising.)
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Reply to: