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

SCC proposal (was: Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)

John Goerzen wrote:

-vote dropped from Cc's, subject changed. Please, can we take some care over these things?

And the result of this discussion is what leaves me with great concern.
Specifically, the proposal:
 1) Provides no way for an arch to produce a stable release after the
    initial set of archs have produced theirs;

Halting unstable autobuilding, fixing remaining bugs in an arch-specific freeze, then making a snapshot allows you to produce a release. It may or may not correspond with Debian stable.

 2) Provides no way for such a stable release to be integrated into the
    security build system;

That's a feature, not a bug: the security team have had ongoing difficulties supporting all those architectures. If there are people willing to do security support for particular architectures, then I'm sure they'll have somewhere to upload to.

 4) Harms the efforts of porters to get their fixes into proper Debian
    source packages by causing brokenness on those archs to no longer
    be RC;

Which is to say "We don't get to use the release team to make other people do our bidding". Big deal, just because something isn't RC doesn't mean it's not a bug and shouldn't be fixed.

 5) Harms the overall usefulness on Debian on the archs that are still
    supported by making their stable environment no longer available
    on other archs in the same organization.

On the other hand, the current situation harms what seems to be 95% of Debian users who're working on i386 machines.

3) For the release problem: not requiring all archs to release at once

Uh, that's what we're doing.

que sera sera. And given the plan is to give porters fairly complete control over their architecture in unstable, rather than necessarily expecting it to be synced with i386; and to provide a snapshot facility
I think losing sync in unstable is a bad thing, and not desirable.  Note
that I do not view any arch as being "synced with i386"; all archs
should be synced with each other, and not everyone uses i386 as their
development platform.

*shrug* The next closest arch is powerpc, at under a tenth of the i386 uploads, and the next closest to that are mipsel, sparc, alpha and ia64 at about a fifth of /that/.

Anyway, "i386" in the above should really be read as "the release candidate architectures".


Reply to: