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

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

This one time, at band camp, Sven Luther said:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:27:25AM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Ingo Juergensmann said:
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:47:58PM +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Moreover, the criterias given in your mail are just so oriented
> > > > towards/against some architectures, that it's a bad joke (I was going
> > > > to write "disgusting", really).
> > > 
> > > It's a total change of direction: from "as long as there are people who
> > > care, we will release those arch" to "no matter if there are people who
> > > care, we just release mainstream archs". :-(
> > 
> > No, I thought the proposal stated quite clearly, if there are users and
> > there are porters, a given arch is able to be included.  All that means
> > is that those interested will actually have to do some of the work to
> > support things like security and the kernel.  I know many of you already
> That is a joke. Do you really think that the porters don't care about the
> kernel ? I would really like that you don't drag the kernel-team in these
> petty claims, as i don't think that this is a problem kernel-wise. For
> example the first to go for the recent 2.6.11 kernels that are in the work
> where powerpc and sparc, and now s390 :

See my other posts, and further down in this one.  I am not interested
in offending anyone, and I am not actively involved in any of these
areas.  I am speaking from watching from the sidelines:
 watching while Woody was delayed for months
 watching while Sarge is delayed for . . . (months? a year? more?)
 watching while security fixes are delayed for weeks or months

These are all unacceptable.

That does not mean that I am saying either of a) drop the less frequently
used arches, or b) the porters aren't doing thir jobs.  I don't believe
either of these statements to be true.  If you are part of the good
effort to port Debian to other architectures than the mainstream ones,
I thank you.

However, the people doing the heavy lifting of coordinating security
releases, kernel management, and release management have spoken, and
they've said they're overloaded.  That being the case, a change in the
distribution of labor is needed, and it likely means that the porters
have to pick up the slack.  If you are already doing so, I don't think
you have anything to worry about.  The arches I see as having problems in
the future are those that have unresponsive buildd admins and slow to act
port teams (or only a single person, who could easily be overwhelmed).
These arches probably shouldn't be released as stable, so no real
loss there.

Take care,
|   ,''`.					     Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :					 sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'			Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-					    http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: pgpWNF1iBmKwe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: