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

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

Hamish Moffatt a écrit :
I see it as more a practical consideration. If you can't buy the
hardware new then you will have trouble keeping up with a growing unstable,
especially given the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds.
So the requirement that you need <= 2 buildds is not well choosen. Why such a requirement? m68k prooved that having a lot of buildd is not a problem, *if they are correctly managed* (which is the case for m68k).

I may be wrong, but it looks like as the criterions have been choosed to only keep some choosen architectures. The right way is too first choose some criterions in function of *technical reasons*, and then look for the architectures that meet them.

Could somebody that participate in the release team meeting explain the technical point(s) behind each requirement of the reduced set of architectures? That way, we could try to find some other solutions to address the technical points.


  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno             | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux developer | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32@debian.org         | aurelien@aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

Reply to: