Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:50:04 +1000, Anthony Towns
<aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> From the announcement:
>
>---
>Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
>are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is
>intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
>ftpmasters also intend to provide porter teams with the option of
>releasing periodic (or not-so-periodic) per-architecture snapshots of
>unstable.
>---
Which is widely regarded as a bad joke of a replacement for what the
architectures get today.
I am inclined to re-word to "We don't leave the architectures out in
the cold, but we'll leave them out in the cold."
>What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
>be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
>that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result
>in a new "snapshot-20050732/main/binary-foo" tree matching the work in
>unstable and a corresponding source tree; at which point CDs/DVDs can be
>burnt from the snapshot, and unstable development can continue.
So you basically forbid releases that are in sync with Debian stable.
>And yes, it's a serious amount of work already, which is why the
>security and release teams want to stop having to do it :)
I fail to see the signatures of security people on the Vancouver
Paper, and it doesn't mention that members of the security team have
attended the Vancouver Meeting. If ftpmaster and/or release don't want
to do the work they have been appointed to do any more, please step
down from your jobs or at least accept new team members.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: