Re: Finding an improved release process.
Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> wrote:
> 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 ?
Yes. If the delay in releasing was normally because of m68k (or s390, or
some other niche architecture), it would make sense to discuss dropping
it. But, in general, it isn't. Most of the problem with our inability to
release is because nobody ever seems to believe that we will ever
actually do so, and so has no qualms about doing something that'll break
everything, or failing to deal with RC bugs.
Thankfully, this no longer seems to be the case for Sarge. The two
things that are holding us up are the installer and the security
support. It's unlikely that the installer would have been finished any
faster if it had been supporting fewer architectures - many people have
got involved because their pet architecture hasn't been well supported,
and have then gone on to work on more general support. I've no idea
what's going on with security.
> 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.
How many releases do you believe have been held up by minority
architectures?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59-chiark.mail.debian.devel@srcf.ucam.org
Reply to: