Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:15:16 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:54:09 -0500, Andres Salomon
> <dilinger@debian.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:32:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I'm a bit disappointed how the decision has been made. I would have
>>
>>*Is* it a decision, or is it a proposal? The wording is unclear.
>
> I don't think it is unclear at all. The powers that decide have
> shifted a little bit, but they still decide without consulting the
> developer body, which is _very_ disappointing.
>
>
There is talk on IRC about this being a proposal (coming from people that
were present at the meeting). *shrug*.
>>I personally think the idea is a good one; maintainers can concentrate on
>>common architectures, and we can potentially have a sane release cycle.
>>Meanwhile, porters can have full control of when and what they release,
>>without being constricted by others' deadlines and such. Unfortunately,
>>the naming (second class citizen?), and the feeling that their
>>architectures are no longer "officially supported", means that people will
>>view this as a negative thing.
>
> Additionally, they are being excluded from having access to important
> resources, and the possibility of filing RC bugs which is the only way
> to get lazy maintainers moving is being taken away.
>
That's an awfully pessimistic view. All porters need is some sort of
leverage that allows them to force maintainers to accept or deal w/
their patches; perhaps some QA team members who will NMU
poorly-maintained packages on behalf of porters? The amd64 crew seems to
be getting along ok w/out having their FTBFS bugs considered RC..
Reply to: