Re: The unofficial buildd effort and its shutdown - my POV
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 11:23:33PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 10:18:04AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> >> > It sounds like you stopped the buildd's because you chose to, not
> >> > because you were told to. You seemed to me to take a few people's
> >> > discussion as determinative. I have no particular opinion about the
> >> > substance of the matter, but your action seemed premature to me.
> >
> >> No, two quite influencial people said to stop it. Read the thread to
> >> find out who. The discussions on irc were even more hostile but from
> >> less important people.
> >
> > I'm afraid I didn't see anyone telling you to stop, even upon rereading
> > the thread; only people expressing concerns. What I did notice was you
> > curiously overstating the impact of these unofficial builds, to wit:
>
> Collin Watson: "I would simply like this practice to stop immediately."
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/08/msg01903.html
>
> I interpret that as a polite way of telling me to stop.
Since you quoted me, a point of information: sponsored binary uploads
are not the same as unofficial buildds, and I was talking strictly about
the former. If you hadn't quoted the smallest possible part of my mail
then this would have been obvious to readers. Various people seem to be
conflating the two issues, though.
That said, I do continue to think that it is a good thing to have the
set of buildds that build sarge before release be operated in as close
as possible to the same way as the set of buildds that build security
uploads for sarge. Not only do we need to release sarge, but we need to
release something that can be supported after it's released.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: