[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 10:50:41AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:

> > IMHO scc.d.o will result in focussing on those archs, making it worse and
> > worse for the other archs. Implementing scc.d.o is equally to dropping those
> > older archs in my eyes. It's just another wording. 
> Notice, that there is really a unclarity of what the problem is, and the
> wording of the announcement really didn't help on this.

There were many discussions about the buildds in the past. None really
showed that the buildds itself are causing much harm to the release. 
Dropping archs (which this proposal actually is in my eyes) therefore just
scratches on the surface, not solving the real problems.  

> If the main problem is the mirror network, i think it does make sense to drop
> some arches from the mirror network. After all, ir could well be that for some
> arches we have more mirrors than users, and a single, or smaller group of
> mirrors for those arches could well be worth it. It could probably be done at
> the DNS level that ftp.<arch>.debian.org automagically points to the right
> place and such, and should be transparent.

Yes. I don't understand the mirror problem either. I'm using my personal
either and have included just those archs and things I want to mirror. 
And I would have no problem when the lesser used archs would be available on
just a few mirrors. This proposal is just plain the wrong thing.  
> But again, i feel that the announcement was one thing, but that it lacks much
> information about the reason which pushed the decision, and the individual
> technical problems to be overcome. Are the minutes of the release-team meeting
> publically available ? 

I personally don't feel this proposal as an invitation for a discussion but
as an announcement what will happen, regardless of what is being discussed
in here. Just smaller adjustments will happen like lowering the 98% barriere
to 97 or 96% or so, but in fact this is already a decission being made by
just a handful of people without asking those who will be affected by that

Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Reply to: