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

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

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 08:45:09PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
> starting with etch.  They will be released with sarge, with all that
> implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they
> would no longer be included in testing.
> [...]

i feel very,very bad about this, but perhaps it's what is needed. i have two
*big* concerns though:

- maintainers will start to downgrade or ignore bugs that are
  arch-specififc if that arch is not in "the" archive. we should have at
  least the requirement that a package must be functional in "the"
  archive + scc to be fit for testing (apart from really arch-specific
  packages of course)
- there must be a way for a scc arch to get a stable release. why don't
  we either keep testing for scc archs but not do releases, so the
  porters can do their own stable releases of their arch or have
  per-arch testing? (the latter might lead to a source package explosion
  i think)

cu  robert  

Robert Lemmen                               http://www.semistable.com 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: