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

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



Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
[...]
> Therefore, we're planning on not releasing most of the minor architectures
> starting with etch.  They will be released with sarge, with all that
> implies (including security support until sarge is archived), but they
> would no longer be included in testing.

OK, i've thought about something a few hours now and don't see why it
shouldn't be proposed [1]:

Our current release process includes a freezing phase, where packages in
testing are not updated from unstable [2]. Wouldn't it be possible to
allow the porters for the SCC archs to update the code in testing
through testing-proposed-updates (which would need RM approval, so
changes that also affect other archs can be rejected) in this time? 

If the porters work hard enough, Debian testing would be in a releasable
state on their arch too, maybe not as polished as on the main
architectures, but better than no release at all. If they want to, this
could be released on scc.debian.org.
This would be a lot like the current amd64 effort, but with more
formalized procedures. If the porters can't do it, their arch won't
block the release process, but if they work hard enough, they can
release together with the main architectures - and on the same code
base, which would easen security support.

Marc

Footnotes: 
[1]  I have to admit that i haven't read the whole thread until now, so
     if this was discussed before, just point me to the MID starting the
     sub-thread.
[2]  Yes, i know, the RMs can hint them in. But that's not the point here.
-- 
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse   # <mailto:marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>

Attachment: pgplJMN1wygpD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: