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

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

John Goerzen wrote:
[snip]
> > - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> >   required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
> > 
> > - the value of N above must not be > 2
> 
> It seems to me that if an arch can keep up with builds, why impose this
> artificial restriction?

I guess in order to have an assured minimum build time for critical
packages like security updates.

> > is freed up by moving the other architectures to scc.debian.org).
> > This will drastically reduce the architecture coordination required in
> > testing, giving us a more limber release process and (it is hoped) a
> > much shorter release cycle on the order of 12-18 months.
> 
> That is a Good Thing.  However, why eliminate out of hand the
> possibility of ever making stable releases for the other 7 archs?  Even
> if they release later than those 4?

I doubt out-of-sync releases are manageable, it would increase the
number of source packages (where a per-arch split of the archive is
inefficient), and the out-of-sync arch would lose the advantage of
the overall stabilization effort.


Thiemo