[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 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 23:36:47 -0800, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
> wrote:
> >Well, sparc is not in any danger of being dropped from SCC. :)  As I
> >said, none of the current sarge candidate architectures are.

> Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> RC any more,

Right, they'll be important instead of serious, the traditional severity
for FTBFS on non-RC archs

> people will stop fixing them

Do you mean to tell me that, *after* dropping this many architectures,
Debian only has enough resources to fix release critical bugs and will
not be able to fix important bugs?

What does that say about where we are in terms of effective QA right
now, then, prior to dropping any architectures?

> >I certainly agree that portability is one of Debian's selling points,
> >and I also have a "pet" architecture that doesn't appear to make the
> >cut for etch; but I don't think it's a coincidence that the release
> >cycle got longer when we doubled the arch count between potato and
> >woody, and I *know* it's not a coincidence that we have a long release
> >cycle for sarge while trying to wrangle those same 11 architectures.

> Both woody and sarge were delayed for multiple months waiting for
> critical parts of the infrastructure. As a mere normal developer who
> seems to be cut out from a lot of information which only seems to be
> available for members of the "inner circle", I fail to see how
> dropping architectures will make the process of making critical
> infrastructure available any faster.

In this instance, the current blocker is only an issue at all because
ftp-master is not scaling well to handle all of the wanna-build ssh
connections that are implied by the activation of another build queue...

And this is not a lone incident.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: