Re: Finding an improved release process.
In article <[🔎] 20041128231206.GA8405@quux.local>,
Graham Wilson <graham@mknod.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 09:44:05AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:25:49PM +0100, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
>> > Yes, we have more packages now, but we also have more developers to
>deal with
>> > them. And we always have a big pool of people that wish to become
>DD, so man
>> > power is not the problem, in my opinion.
>>
>> Manpower almost certainly isn't the problem with archive size, and I don't
>> think it really ever has been. The problem is, primarily, the increasing
>> complexity and size of the dependency tree, and the number and complexity of
>> interactions between packages in the archive. Keeping that all straight can
>> be very, very tricky -- and it gets increasingly tricky as the archive
>> grows.
>
>Granted, the large archive size and the complex package dependency
>changes make creating a new stable distribution a difficult process;
>however, we seem to be managing well enough at this point. The release
>blocker is, at this point, the lack of build daemons for some
>architectures.
If there's no working buildd for the m68k architecture, or the
installer isn't ready for all m68k systems, it holds up the
release even though only 20 people use it. Which is part of the
problem - with so few users, who's going to fix that ?
OTOH, when sarge is finally released it will be without AMD64
because that architecture couldn't be added in time- which was
before September 2004.
I'm strongly in favor of releasing only for the 2 or 3 most
popular architectures and whatever other arches happen to
be ready. If one isn't ready to be released, release without it.
That arch can always be synced at a point release, if the users
and developers of that architecture care enough.
Mike.
Reply to: