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

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:14:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> writes:
> > 
> > > This is a problem. No one will fix the portability bugs that plague, for
> > > example, sparc (memory alignment SIGBUS) without them being severity
> > > serious.
> > 
> > Can the porters fix such bugs?
> They usually do -- they work out the problem, and provide a patch.
> The trick then appears to be getting maintainers to actually apply them.

Right, so NMU.  We can always suitable adjust NMU policies; they are
there to serve us, not to prevent us from solving problems.

Note that in the lead-up to release, non-RC NMUs are fair game to
solve bugs; that's part of what a BSP is for.  Since the scc strategy
essentially makes porters into their own release managers, we could
easily say that porting teams gearing up for release can do the same
thing to fix arch-specific killer bugs.

> > Do the porters promise me a machine running unstable so that I can fix
> > them myself?
> That would be the "developer-accessable machine" mentioned in the nybble, I
> believe.

Right; they don't exist now.  My point is that if the porters can't
find two reliable machines for developers (one for stable, one for
unstable), then it doesn't seem all that crazy to say that developers
shouldn't be responsible for working with the arch themselves.


Reply to: