Vision for the future (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))
On Monday 14 March 2005 17:16, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:03:30PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Thus the problem is less in the development and more in the support of
> > testing requirements (all arches in sync) and stable support (security
> > response time). Therefore the N<=2 requirement is only needed for tier-1
> > arches but not for the tier-2 which will not officially release a stable.
>
> Why can we just not relax these requirements, and m68k people get their
> kde security updates 12 days after everyone else does, because that is a
> fact of life on m68k?
>
> Moreover, perhaps we ought to rethink the "all arches in sync" rules for
> testing a bit; maybe it's OK if some archs aren't in sync.
Both are currently "happening." The current release and security teams say
that they cannot support the tier-2 arches for etch. The porters jump up and
prove them wrong by creating stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks and
eventually we will have timely Debian stable releases people can trust their
jobs on and Debian stable-with-security-updates-after-two-weeks releases for
tier-1.5 arches I can safely install behind a firewall or in my network-free
basement. Or perhaps they pickup the idea floating around somewhere else in
this thread, building two or three 10-ways distcc-powered buildds suddenly
fulfilling tier-1 requirements. But the latter will not be done by the
current release/security/d-i/kernel/x teams.
In my opinion these rules are an important step in the right direction:
setting down checkable borders.
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: