Requireing 98% built sources (was: Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting)
On Monday 14 March 2005 22:30, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (David Schmitt) writes:
> > On Monday 14 March 2005 11:10, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> >> pcc is barely at 98%. I don't think that barrier should be that high. We
> >> *should* at last release with the tree most important archs: i386,
> >> amd64, powerpc.
> > Please, 98% is not high. It is just a call to porters to get their act
> > together.
[much agreeable stuff]
> The real question on the day of release is what the build percentage of
> 'testing' is for each architecture, and that's a pretty easy place to drive
> the numbers near or to 100% if we think it's important enough!
The 98% are a requirement to reach tier-1 with testing-major and FTBFS==RC
status. As with policy changes DDs have to "show the code" first before they
get the "official" stamp. As you correctly say, once an arch enters tier-1,
testing should stay at >98% built. Which still forces the archto stay ahead
of the 98% in unstable, I would guess that to prevent a drooping arch from
delaying the whole project too much.
On a tangent, some sentences I wrote before understanding your paragraph:
If an arch that would be tier-1 otherwise is dropped two days before etch
releases because there are only 97.999% built sources after demonstrating the
ability to reach 99+% for months, I would call the decisionmaker nuts.
If on the other hand the arch in question was never able to prove consistent
buildd performance they probably also are not able to consistently and
instantly react on security issues and have a much higher probability to
cause shlib-skew and testing-propagation hold-ups.
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15