Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Scripsit David Nusinow <david_nusinow@verizon.net>
>> Do they? The announcement looks noticeably different.
> My interpretation of the announcement, and this also comes from
> talking with some of the people involved, is that this affords ports
> with the flexibility to do as they please without slowing down the
> rest of the project.
That interpretation does not fit the announcement that actually got
posted to debian-devel-announce.
The announcement that actually got posted says that the only
architectures that will be allowed to have "testing" and eventually
"stable" after sarge releases will be i386, ia64, powerpc, and amd64.
All other architectures have the "flexibility" to either stick with
unstable and only unstable, or leave the project. Boo-yeah.
> For *years*, I've heard porters complain about ftpmaster and
> such. Well, now every port has the full ability to take matters in
> to their own hands.
Meaning that they are kicked out and told to start their own project
where they can take matters in their own hands. Just what they've
always wanted to do, I am sure.
> The differences? Port packages don't go in to Debian mainline
> testing. However, this does not preclude them from setting up a
> separate testing if they like.
Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?
> The people involved with the Vancouver document know what they're
> doing, and they've said (more than once when I've heard) that the
> unstable snapshot method is better than setting up a separate
> testing, and I believe them.
And you still claim that having this solution (non-solution if you ask
me) forced on an architecture from above constitutes "flexibility to
take matters in their own hands"???
> And when the time comes to release, it's simply not the release
> managers' jobs to make sure the port releases alongside the rest of
> Debian.
However, they have now made it their job to tell the ports that they
*must not* move alongside the rest of Debian, whether or not the
portes want to or not.
> This does not preclude porters from making a stable release.
Which part of "unstable-only" does one of us fail to understand?
> In fact, all the talk I've heard assumes that they will (via the
> snapshot method).
If you think a snapshot makes a distribution stable, then why do we
have testing and freezes for the main architectures at all?
> I think that when a port makes a stable release
... which it is not allowed to according to the Vancouver plan.
> But ultimately, it's not going to be the RM's jobs anymore to make
> sure that these ports do release.
Why do the RM's think it is their job to *prevent* the lesser ports
from releasing?
> Think of it as freedom (which it is) rather than exile (which it's
> most definitely not)
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
--
Henning Makholm "The great secret, known to internists and
learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."
Reply to: