[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 09:19:27AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> 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*.

They still don't say they will hear what people have problems with. Probably
just end up saying people complain too much and that our lists should be
monitored and flamers (or dissidents) barred from them.

> >>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..

Because there is a big commercial interest in getting amd64 support, not
counting ubuntu being based on debian and doing amd64 work. Not to mention
that they employ many who vetoed amd64-in-sarge in that sad story all those
days ago.


Sven Luther

Reply to: