Re: Vancouver meeting - clarifications
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:38:51AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Tollef Fog Heen (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050315 10:50]:
> > Debian has a fairly big chunk of cash lying about. If we have
> > problems doing testing migration because of not enough hardware, this
> > is something I think we should spend money on. Or we could ask a
> > sponsor (hi HP!:) if they would be willing to donate some more memory.
> Well, that was one of the examples where we pay a price for more
> architectures. Of course, the testing migration script is not all, and
> this problem can be solved, but I think we should not forget that we pay
> a price - even if at the end, we think the price is acceptable.
Sure, but Debian has received lots of donation in hardware and cash
*because* we were supporting more architectures. It seems fit to use
that money and donations to continue that path.
> (And, BTW, newraff is a quite mature box. Of course, there is always
> more and better hardware available, but newraff is already a very good
> machine. And, we want to give the testing migration script more tasks,
> like handling of the udebs, which puts load off from human being and on
> into a script. But that increases the ressources the script uses.)
Sure, but if buying 32Gb more RAM for sarge make the life of the
release team easier, it is a very good use of the money.
> One of the problems is that for every decision (and even for the
> decision to don't make a decision), we pay a price. There are prices
> I'm not willing to pay (like another release cycle of the length of
> sarge) - but well, if Debian goes into that direction, I'll go out of
> the way. Other people are not willing to pay other prices. My goal is
> to find a route to take that as many people as possible are considering
> as acceptable.
Thanks to put the matter so clearly.
For the record, I am willing to pay the price of another release cycle
of the length of sarge much more than I am willing to pay the price of a
crippled release with only half a dozen architectures supported.
However, I am not so pessimistic: we have released woody with less delay
than sarge will with the same set of architectures and several of them
were more problematic than any archs have been during sarge. (ia64 was
using gcc-2.96 and hppa gcc-3.0 which refused to compile legacy g++ code
and hppa g++ did not support exception).
Imagine a large red swirl here.