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

Re: Vision for the future (was: Re: COUNT(buildd) IN (2,3))

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:17:08PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> 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 

Which end done doing less because they have to duplicate all the architecture
already in place for tier1, no ? 


Sven Luther

Reply to: