[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
> > are not going to be left out in the cold.  The SCC infrastructure is
> > intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
> > ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of
> > releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of
> > unstable.

> [I'm a pure x86 user atm, so if this is a non-issue, I'll gladly be 
> educated]

> Why only unstable?  In other words: will it be possible for scc arches to 
> have a testing distribution?  Obviously, this testing/arch will not 
> influence the release candidate arch testing, but will allow real releases 
> of scc-arches if a RM/release team steps up.

(A popular question...)

There are a few problems with trying to run testing for architectures
that aren't being kept in sync.  First, if they're not being kept in
sync, it increases the number of matching source packages that we need
to keep around (which, as has been discussed, is already a problem);
second, if you want to update using the testing scripts, you either have
to run a separate copy of britney for each arch (time consuming,
resource-intensive) or continue processing it as part of the main
britney run (we already tread the line in terms of how many archs
britney can handle, and using a single britney check for archs that
aren't keeping up doesn't give very good results); and third, if
failures on non-release archs are not release-critical bugs (which
they're not), you don't have any sane measure of bugginess for britney
to use in deciding which packages to keep out.

For these reasons, I think the snapshotting approach is a better option,
because it puts the package selection choices directly in the hands of
the porters rather than trying to munge the existing testing scripts
into something that will make reasonable package selections for you.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: